Climate of a rational world

[john42t]

Shayne started a thread that unfortunately got closed prematurely; here's what I want to respond to:

We liberty-oriented folk can't live in the kind of world we prefer at the moment, at least not politically-socially, so what we are left with is creating the kind of world we'd like to see in the intellectual sphere, such as in this forum. Does George's behavior exemplify what we are after?

Yes.

I appreciate your defence when I was under attack after I joined the forum, so please don't interpret the following as an attack; I merely want to point something out that touches the recently discussed left-right (libertarian) issue in the other thread.

I'm convinced freedom is coming rather soon, total and for good - I don't want to explain why but only what it will look like.

It won't be a world full of nice people having rational debates. George does to you is going to *increase*.

Rand has been praising the 19th century Zeitgeist. That was a much more elitist one in those circles of the world that did best.

A Zeitgeist in a free society is elitist, like the one in Victorian England. People sniping at each other is the hallmark of ambitious people who rest their confidence in their ability rather than in "being liked". If man is set free from man, this is the result. The opposite is a classroom where you start being mister nice guy as soon as the teacher comes in: Because under such circumstances knowledge and reason is nothing, and behaving is everything.

Civilized behaviour is in the interest of everyone, but friendliness is not.

Do you know Dr. House, especially Season 4? Total competition, applicants seeking to screw each other over. Everyone rational but no one nice.

That is one fundamental difference between right and left winged libertarians: The left-winged ones feel like the liberals and believe those just failed to understand something. A right-winged libertarian like myself thinks that no one in this world "means it well", no matter how abstractly.

As a rule of thumb: *Everyone* but yourself is a mystic, take their bullshit seriously and you are damned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne started a thread that unfortunately got closed prematurely...

John,

This is inaccurate.

There is no mature time to close a thread.

If you are in doubt about the posting guidelines, I suggest you consult them.

Michael

EDIT: And just to be clear, if this thread turns out to be a sneaky form of trying to continue the spat in the thread I closed, I will not throw it in the Garbage Pile. I will delete it.

[Xray]

I'm convinced freedom is coming rather soon, total and for good - I don't want to explain why but only what it will look like.

I would prefer you to explain, in order to get as much clarity as possible.

Total freedom from what? And total freedom for whom?

It won't be a world full of nice people having rational debates.

How are decisions made in that world?

A right-winged libertarian like myself thinks that no one in this world "means it well", no matter how abstractly.

We humans are competitive as well as cooperative. Competition and cooperation are both rooted in our biology as group beings.

[Brant Gaede]

There is no such thing as "total freedom" unless you mean the freedom Stalin had to murder tens of millions through various means.

There is no such thing as the permanent triumph of freedom, total or otherwise, however you define and characterize it.

There is only the constant ongoing battle for freedom and rationality. One may or may not be a participant.

--Brant

[john42t]

I'm convinced freedom is coming rather soon, total and for good - I don't want to explain why but only what it will look like.

I would prefer you to explain, in order to get as much clarity as possible.

Total freedom from what? And total freedom for whom?

Total freedom for all rational men, which isn't everyone, but will eventually be everyone.

Total freedom from the man-made bad, which roots in irrational ideas, which in turn root in the resentment against the better.

There was a brief period in time in which the West, especially the US, was much more free that it was in the 20th century. That freedom was objective but apparently unstable. Before that, there was only ancient greece (and maybe what the Jews were having in their familiy lines).

My prediction that freedom will eventually be total is only meant to say that this time it will gradually get better (more like it was in th 18th and 19th century and then even better), and there will be no more periods of decline.

It won't be a world full of nice people having rational debates.

How are decisions made in that world?

Just like in this one. Only that there is more private ownership and decision-making relates more to one's own business rather than a collective.

A right-winged libertarian like myself thinks that no one in this world "means it well", no matter how abstractly.

We humans are competitive as well as cooperative. Competition and cooperation are both rooted in our biology as group beings.

You don't have to mean it well to be coorperative. You just have to be selfish.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm convinced freedom is coming rather soon, total and for good - I don't want to explain why but only what it will look like.

I would prefer you to explain, in order to get as much clarity as possible.

Total freedom from what? And total freedom for whom?

Total freedom for all rational men, which isn't everyone, but will eventually be everyone.

Total freedom from the man-made bad, which roots in irrational ideas, which in turn root in the resentment against the better.

There was a brief period in time in which the West, especially the US, was much more free that it was in the 20th century. That freedom was objective but apparently unstable. Before that, there was only ancient greece (and maybe what the Jews were having in their familiy lines).

My prediction that freedom will eventually be total is only meant to say that this time it will gradually get better (more like it was in th 18th and 19th century and then even better), and there will be no more periods of decline.

It won't be a world full of nice people having rational debates.

How are decisions made in that world?

Just like in this one. Only that there is more private ownership and decision-making relates more to one's own business rather than a collective.

A right-winged libertarian like myself thinks that no one in this world "means it well", no matter how abstractly.

We humans are competitive as well as cooperative. Competition and cooperation are both rooted in our biology as group beings.

You don't have to mean it well to be coorperative. You just have to be selfish.

Without more than asseveration, this is mostly preposterous.

--Brant

[john42t]

There is only the constant ongoing battle for freedom and rationality. One may or may not be a participant.

Reminds me of a word Michael used in a recent thread. He said my sneering on camera doesn't help the "cause". And you use the word "participant" in the "ongoing battle for freedom and rationality".

I defined in my recent posting in this thread what freedom means to me, but of course it's not a "cause" or anything I would "participate" in. That would be altruism.

Doing it as a professional like Rand, Beck or Coulter is a different matter (it's again selfish), but I'm not a professional ideologue.

[Brant Gaede]

There is only the constant ongoing battle for freedom and rationality. One may or may not be a participant.

Reminds me of a word Michael used in a recent thread. He said my sneering on camera doesn't help the "cause". And you use the word "participant" in the "ongoing battle for freedom and rationality".

I defined in my recent posting in this thread what freedom means to me, but of course it's not a "cause" or anything I would "participate" in. That would be altruism.

Doing it as a professional like Rand, Beck or Coulter is a different matter (it's again selfish), but I'm not a professional ideologue.

If you are a participant in your family, is that altruism?

"They came for us one by one."

"What happened to the Jews who used to live here, hon?" "Nevermind, darling. It's a great apartment!" "Will the allies bomb here?" "No dear, Dresden is not a military target."

"Freedom? I don't need no stinkin' freedom! You need freedom!"

--Brant

chew your ideas before swallowing

[Brant Gaede]

I defined in my recent posting in this thread what freedom means to me.

You defined nothing, much less "freedom." If you described what it means to you, I missed it. So far "freedom," like "altruism," is a tail you are trying to stick on non-existing donkeys--in your own mind, at least, as far as anything I've read so far.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Reminds me of a word Michael used in a recent thread. He said my sneering on camera doesn't help the "cause".

John,

I am beginning to see something manifest that I suspected in the beginning.

You are an extremely imprecise reader.

I said your sneering gets in the way of your message. I said nothing at all about "the cause."

To recap my view just for clarity:

Sneering on camera turns people off. That's simply a fact of communication. You sneer on camera. This turns people off. The danger with this is that people will not listen to your message because they are turned off by the sneering.

That's what happened to me. It's a good bet this happens with others.

If you don't want an audience, though, hell, that's fine by me. Sneer all you want.

But you showed up here asking if you could post your videos, so I presumed you were seeking an audience. That's a reasonable assumption by any standard. That's why I criticized your presentation skills as harshly as I did. (There's another reason, but going on what I have seen so far in your attitude, I doubt you would understand it according to my intentions. So I'll keep my peace.)

btw - This site is not devoted to promoting any Objectivist movement (or "cause" or any form of class warfare thinking). Nor is it devoted to preaching in any form. The people who come here have been influenced by Objectivism in differing ways and to differing degrees in their life, so it is a common experience. But each person speaks only for himself as an individual. We like to discuss stuff with each other, so we do. Added to that, we have a highly intelligent audience of people who like to read those discussions.

In other words, on OL, Objectivism is a starting point for discussions between individuals, not an end point that is preached or used as dogma to save the world and trash a common enemy.

There are other forums devoted to that spirit.

Michael

[john42t]

I said your sneering gets in the way of your message. I said nothing at all about "the cause."

I apologize, my mistake.

[Xray]

You don't have to mean it well to be coorperative. You just have to be selfish.

I think we can agree that selfishness (I prefer to call it self-interest because it sounds more neutral ) is a drive, biologically hardwired in us humans.

So the question is not whether we humas are selfish or not (we are, without exception) - the question is how the selfishness expresses itself. What an individual's self-interest is concerned with. It is there that one can find the many varieties.

There was a brief period in time in which the West, especially the US, was much more free that it was in the 20th century. That freedom was objective but apparently unstable. Before that, there was only ancient greece (and maybe what the Jews were having in their familiy lines).

I would not call a society "free" that kept slaves like ancient Greece. Women had very few rights there either.

Total freedom for all rational men, which isn't everyone, but will eventually be everyone.

Total freedom from the man-made bad, which roots in irrational ideas, which in turn root in the resentment against the better.

Imo this argument contains a contradiction since total freedom for A cannot imply total freedom for its opposite, non-A.

[john42t]

You don't have to mean it well to be coorperative. You just have to be selfish.

I think we can agree that selfishness (I prefer to call it self-interest because it sounds more neutral ) is a drive, biologically hardwired in us humans.

So the question is not whether we humas are selfish or not (we are, without exception) - the question is how the selfishness expresses itself. What an individual's self-interest is concerned with. It is there that one can find the many varieties.

True, I merely wanted to stress that the coorperation doesn't requirere altruism, that's why I used the non-neutral word selfishness. Rand used that provocative language for the same reason I believe.

There was a brief period in time in which the West, especially the US, was much more free that it was in the 20th century. That freedom was objective but apparently unstable. Before that, there was only ancient greece (and maybe what the Jews were having in their familiy lines).

I would not call a society "free" that kept slaves like ancient Greece. Women had very few rights there either.

Well, here I disagree.

The historic default used to be that virtually everyone is a slave to the tribe. Sometimes a few leaders had some freedom, and of course most didn't see the bars because they never aspired for anything others would want to take from them.

The remarkable thing that happened in some cities of ancient greece was that for the first time, a majority of people took pride in their own ability and had political influence that rested on that ability (rather than a mystical or egalitarian notion). The ability in question was for the most part the capacity to buy arms (a financial issue) and to fight enemies in times of war (in Athen anyway). Women didn't have that ability, so it's logical they had few rights (or none even). The modern equivalent would be that only net tax payers have a right to vote (or something like that). It would take away any influence on the government from occupy wall street protesters (students), as well as teachers and professors (net-tax-receivers), who are also usually leftists.

The word freedom is of course extremely ambiguous. I only mean freedom from the irrational - in that sense, freedom will be total. The world will be rational.

Whether this is a good thing for oneself personally is a different story. I suppose it's best for the young, but those don't get what is played. It's not so good for the rest, that's why so many are so pessimistic about the future.

[anthony]

You don't have to mean it well to be coorperative. You just have to be selfish.

I think we can agree that selfishness (I prefer to call it self-interest because it sounds more neutral ) is a drive, biologically hardwired in us humans. So the question is not whether we humas are selfish or not (we are, without exception) - the question is how the selfishness expresses itself. What an individual's self-interest is concerned with. It is there that one can find the many varieties.

True, I merely wanted to stress that the coorperation doesn't requirere altruism, that's why I used

Not true. Xray, you have heard these arguments too many times to be ignorant of the O'ist principle.

I suggest Branden's essay in VOS: "Isn't Everyone Selfish?"

An excerpt: "The basic fallacy in the "everybody is selfish" argument consists of an extraordinarily crude equivocation. It is a psychological truism - a tautology - that all purposeful behavior is motivated. But to equate "MOTIVATED behavior" with "SELFISH behavior" is to blank out the distinction between an elementary fact of human psychology, and the phenomenon of ETHICAL CHOICE. It is to evade the central problem of ethics, namely: by WHAT is man to be motivated?"

Your "biologically hard-wired self-interest" is inane and primitive, by comparison with a chosen, rational, selfish, morality. Are we lizards or men?

Tony

[john42t]

Your "biologically hard-wired self-interest" is inane and primitive, by comparison with a chosen, rational, selfish, morality. Are we lizards or men?

You are right, we were wrong. Human beings are all selfish (in the crude sense that lizards are), but that's not the selfishness that leads to cooperation. And cooperation was the context.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I apologize, my mistake.

John,

Cool.

Apology wasn't necessary, but an unqualified acknowledgment of a mistake is a welcome rarity in O-land.

Thank you.

Michael

[Xray]

Not true. Xray, you have heard these arguments too many times to be ignorant of the O'ist principle.

I suggest Branden's essay in VOS: "Isn't Everyone Selfish?"

An excerpt: "The basic fallacy in the "everybody is selfish" argument consists of an extraordinarily crude equivocation. It is a psychological truism - a tautology - that all purposeful behavior is motivated. But to equate "MOTIVATED behavior" with "SELFISH behavior" is to blank out the distinction between an elementary fact of human psychology, and the phenomenon of ETHICAL CHOICE. It is to evade the central problem of ethics, namely: by WHAT is man to be motivated?"

Tony,

I'm not ignorant of the Objecivist principle, and know NB's article very well.

And when you read this part of my post:

"the question is how the selfishness expresses itself. What an individual's self-interest is concerned with" - this is what I'm finally getting at (the ethical issue).

But as a first step, it is important to establish a common ground in the exchange with a new poster, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.

Your "biologically hard-wired self-interest" is inane and primitive, by comparison with a chosen, rational, selfish, morality. Are we lizards or men?

I'm no reductionist. I'm merely going from the basic to the more differentiated. The basic part we all have in common with the lizards.

The differentiated part is where ethics comes in. But every ethics has to take into account that basic part as well. too. An ethics that completely ignored it could not work.

[anthony]

Your "biologically hard-wired self-interest" is inane and primitive, by comparison with a chosen, rational, selfish, morality. Are we lizards or men?

You are right, we were wrong. Human beings are all selfish (in the crude sense that lizards are), but that's not the selfishness that leads to cooperation. And cooperation was the context.

Sure, and I realised this. I was also questioning your remark that "cooperation doesn't require altruism."

It sounded a little ambiguous and half-hearted to me.

If anything, cooperation needs a total absence of altruism. I think it needs self-interest and mutual respect by both parties to be sustainable, and ultimately, rationally moral.

I gather, though, that you know this already.

I appreciate your self-correction.

Tony

[anthony]

I'm no reductionist. I'm merely going from the basic to the more differentiated. The basic part we all have in common with the lizards. The differentiated part is where ethics comes in. But every ethics has to take into account that basic part as well. too. An ethics that completely ignored it could not work.

With your last sentence, I believe you're right. Nothing that comprises a human should be denied, of course.

I'm a fan of a statement by one Lin Yutang: "Any good, practical philosophy should start out with the recognition of our having a body." (Or lizard brain. ) It is in keeping with Objectivism, I think.

However, ignoring our basics, or deriving a morality from them, are two distinct things.

Much - if not most - of our hard-wiring, i.e. an instinct for communality, rape and plunder, and so on - is no longer beneficial, or neutral, or downright harmful to rational man.

With only one certainty - our reason - to guide us, that's what morality should be based upon. Which answers NB's query - "By what is man to be motivated."

Without losing our humanity, or forgetting our biology, the mind and volition over-rule the basic part, as you put it, and THAT is the nature of Man that morality is derived from.

Tony

[john42t]

Much - if not most - of our hard-wiring, i.e. an instinct for communality, rape and plunder, and so on - is no longer beneficial, or neutral, or downright harmful to rational man.

I approve of your conceptual purity.

The man who puts communality in a bucket with rape is the kind of man I trust to be reasonable.

[syrakusos]

Without losing our humanity, or forgetting our biology, the mind and volition over-rule the basic part, as you put it, and THAT is the nature of Man that morality is derived from. Tony

Jane Jacobs and DIerdre McCloskey both from different premises wrote of morality and ethics with the same ultimate means and ends as defined by Ayn Rand. In other words, bourgeois virtue and bourgeois dignity (McCloskey) come from the Trader Ethic (Jacobs). Robert Malcolm who posts here occasionally has two nice essays on RoR about the :"Taking Principle" and the "Trading Principle." What he calls the "Taking Principle" is the animal way of life, which, effectively is what Jacobs called the Guardian Ethic. The Guardian Ethic is what defines police, army, the state, etc., i.e., our communal life: distrust of strangers, honor for tradition, respect for authority, deceit to achieve a goal, etc. On the other hand, the Trader ethos rewards breaking the rules to achieve a goal (innovation), and rewards keeping one's word.

In Systems of Survival, Jacobs uses dinner party dialogues to array the two modes, in order of their moral hierarchies. In other words, loyality is the primary virtrue of the guardians, but traders want to befriend aliens first. That said, once you array the two systems, you can do compare-contrast to show that sometimes these virtues are roughly similar. The guardians' honor is similar to the trader's keeping their word. Most are direct opposites, as the warriors are fatalistic while the merchants are optimistic.

Similarly, in her many essays and two books, Dierdre McCloskey shows how the virtues of Benjamin Franklin (bourgeois) departed from the moral codes exemplified by Achilles (the noble) and St. Francis (the peasant). It is significant that in his Protestant Ethic, Max Weber quoted at length from Franklin's The Way to Wealth.

[Xray]

The word freedom is of course extremely ambiguous. I only mean freedom from the irrational - in that sense, freedom will be total. The world will be rational.

Words like e. g. "freedom", are sometimes called 'fudge words' because unless it is specified what kind of freedom is meant, everyone can project their own connotations into the term.

There is definitely a movement toward more and more rationality observable in the world. History of mankind is a history of shedding irrational beliefs and assumptions.

This process is also irreversible, i. e. no one living in our modern society will fall behind the stage of knowledge reached and advocate premises which have been exposed as false. (like e. g. the earth being flat, or the human mind being tabula rasa).

Sure there still remain irrational residues, like people believing in astrology or Creationists denying Evolution, but the overall movement goes in the direction of rationality.

In ethics, we can observe the same phenomenon of irreversibility. Humanity evolves toward more rationality, and with it ethics evolves in the same direction. That's why we won't find any rational human being in our times who would suggest e. g. to introduce slavery again. The Golden Rule is a very rational rule.

Also interesting to note is that ethics is moving toward more empathy. It is moving toward the 'family of men' idea, and that idea does not mean 'collectivism'; it merely recognizes that all human beings are entitled to living a fullfilled life.

The Declaration of Human Rights is an outstanding document listing basic human values many countries have agreed upon.

[john42t]

In ethics, we can observe the same phenomenon of irreversibility. Humanity evolves toward more rationality, and with it ethics evolves in the same direction. That's why we won't find any rational human being in our times who would suggest e. g. to introduce slavery again. The Golden Rule is a very rational rule.

Also interesting to note is that ethics is moving toward more empathy. It is moving toward the 'family of men' idea, and that idea does not mean 'collectivism'; it merely reccognizes that all fellow human beings are entitled to living a fullfilled life.

The Declaration of Human Rights is an outstanding document listing basic human values many countries have agreed upon.

The Declaration of Human Rights is a good example of the mystical residue you were talking about. The document basically says that every human being gets a country to live in, has a duty to serve this country but in return gets a list of benefits, the most ridiculous example being the right to holiday. I call them cattle rights, because for cattle they are perfect.

Morality reversed quite a bit during the 20th century. Here in Germany, 80% approves of slavery: Ask them whether they think Cuba's health care system is acceptable or whether the draft is a good idea to keep a country united. They merely oppose *privately owned* slaves. They are not anti-slavery, they are anti-private-property.

[Xray]

In ethics, we can observe the same phenomenon of irreversibility. Humanity evolves toward more rationality, and with it ethics evolves in the same direction. That's why we won't find any rational human being in our times who would suggest e. g. to introduce slavery again. The Golden Rule is a very rational rule.

Also interesting to note is that ethics is moving toward more empathy. It is moving toward the 'family of men' idea, and that idea does not mean 'collectivism'; it merely reccognizes that all fellow human beings are entitled to living a fullfilled life.

The Declaration of Human Rights is an outstanding document listing basic human values many countries have agreed upon.

The Declaration of Human Rights is a good example of the mystical residue you were talking about. The document basically says that every human being gets a country to live in, has a duty to serve this country but in return gets a list of benefits, the most ridiculous example being the right to holiday. I call them cattle rights, because for cattle they are perfect.

Would you please provide direct quotes from the Declaration of Human Rights where it says people have a "duty" to serve their country?

Morality reversed quite a bit during the 20th century. Here in Germany, 80% approves of slavery: Ask them whether they think Cuba's health care system is acceptable or whether the draft is a good idea to keep a country united. They merely oppose *privately owned* slaves. They are not anti-slavery, they are anti-private-property.

I would say most people here in Germany have no idea which services the health care system in Cuba covers (or doesn't cover), nor are they really interested in it.

Many are angry though about the public health care system not covering expenses anymore that used to be covered in past years.

As for the military draft, it has recently been abolished in Germany; I don't have the impression that many regret this.

[john42t]

Would you please provide direct quotes from the Declaration of Human Rights where it says people have a "duty" to serve their country?

Article 92.I:

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

I especially love the Orwellian way of putting it: how it's in the individuals interest. Slavery is freedom.

I would say most people here in Germany have no idea which services the health care system in Cuba covers (or doesn't cover), nor are they really interested in it.

Which services it covers in detail is irrelevant to the question of slavery. They agree with Michael Moore on that it is by and large more moral than the US one, as everyone has free access. They condone slavery as long as all slaves are owned by the government. And of course they don't call it slavery, but have nice fancy do-gooder language for it like the one to be found in the human rights charter.

As for the military draft, it has recently been abolished in Germany; I don't have the impression that many regret this.

Not many regret that freedom was increased, no - that's indeed the right way to phrase how Germans tick.