Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists

[Ellen Stuttle]

Tony,

This is just a note of acknowledgment of your post #170.

I'm grateful for the neat typography, with the blank lines between paragraphs. That really does make a difference to the amount of eye-troubles I experience trying to read a computer screen.

Also, the post is helpful to me in getting a clearer mental perspective on the difference in the way you're coming at the issue of "altruism" from the way I am.

I hope to get back to the post after some time for thinking about it. Maybe tomorrow.

In any case, I wanted to let you know now that I read the post and that I'm appreciate of the carefulness, both typographic and intellectual.

Ellen

[anthony]

Also, the post is helpful to me in getting a clearer mental perspective on the difference in the way you're coming at the issue of "altruism" from the way I am.

Ellen

Sure thing Ellen. It's not me, though. (I know you realize.) It's about eliciting Rand's over all portrayal of altruism. If I am wrong, mea culpa.

Thing is, if altruism-collectivism becomes accepted as a reduced and 'de-fanged' concept, rational selfishness becomes pretty much toothless, too.

[Brant Gaede]

Also, the post is helpful to me in getting a clearer mental perspective on the difference in the way you're coming at the issue of "altruism" from the way I am.

Ellen

Sure thing Ellen. It's not me, though. (I know you realize.) It's about eliciting Rand's over all portrayal of altruism. If I am wrong, mea culpa.

Thing is, if altruism-collectivism becomes accepted as a reduced and 'de-fanged' concept, rational selfishness becomes pretty much toothless, too.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Tooth or no tooth you have to go with what you have and make of it what you will. The world of words per se is a de-fanged and de-clawed place.

--Brant

I still have a few fangs and all my claws

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sure thing Ellen. It's not me, though. (I know you realize.) It's about eliciting Rand's over all portrayal of altruism. If I am wrong, mea culpa.

Well, there's a question. To what extent are you accurately portraying Rand's view?

I do think that Rand's view on altruism is an important example of her (1) redifining language, and (2) producing umbrella categories which include way too much all under the same rubric.

Both are aspects of what I see as a poor job of salesmanship of the good stuff in Objectivism, a poor job which hands the advantage to people whose interests are served by misrepresenting the good stuff.

For instance, the depictions of Rand as "an apostle of selfishness," a depiction which was used in the Obama "Rolling Stone" interview discussed on an earlier thread. "Sister [Rand], you asked for it."

Thing is, if altruism-collectivism becomes accepted as a reduced and 'de-fanged' concept, rational selfishness becomes pretty much toothless, too.

I don't agree.

Furthermore, I think that the "fangs" Rand put on altruism-collectivism are partly her invention, as indicated above. Her use of "altruism" is tricky, since her meaning derives directly from Comte. I suppose that she actually read some of his work - in French, at which language she was fluent. But even by the time Atlas Shrugged was published, "altruism" in common English parlance (I don't know about French) had lost its Comtean meaning and come to mean general caring and concern for others. Although Rand to an extent shows awareness of this change, she tends to do so in a way which impugns the motives of those who don't use the term as she does, and which furthermore indicates that her meaning is the "correct" meaning (as if there is such a thing as a "correct" in the sense of "true" meaning of a word).

As I've mentioned on another thread, I've been rereading Rand's early 1960 lecture "Faith and Force...." It's a lecture which was given at Yale, Brooklyn College, and Columbia. Rand starts by, in effect, castigating the professors attending the talk (great way, not, to encourage their receptivity to her message). Then she announces by fiat what "altruism" is, sandwiching in a string of descriptions. Then she extends the meaning widely and retroactively.

Typical of the method she subsequently used. Poor, I think, at salesmanship (except to her enthusiasts), and irresponsible methodologically.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

--Brant

I still have a few fangs and all my claws

But only half your marbles.

Ellen

You set yourself up for that.

[Brant Gaede]

--Brant

I still have a few fangs and all my claws

But only half your marbles.

Ellen

You set yourself up for that.

You're only the second poster to ever top me. I forgot who was the other, probably Carol.

--Brant

Tom Hanks (Big character): "Okay, but I get to be on top!"

[caroljane]

Just so it wasn't Adam!

[anthony]

Sure thing Ellen. It's not me, though. (I know you realize.) It's about eliciting Rand's over all portrayal of altruism. If I am wrong, mea culpa.

Well, there's a question. To what extent are you accurately portraying Rand's view?

I do think that Rand's view on altruism is an important example of her (1) redifining language, and (2) producing umbrella categories which include way too much all under the same rubric.

Both are aspects of what I see as a poor job of salesmanship of the good stuff in Objectivism, a poor job which hands the advantage to people whose interests are served by misrepresenting the good stuff.

For instance, the depictions of Rand as "an apostle of selfishness," a depiction which was used in the Obama "Rolling Stone" interview discussed on an earlier thread. "Sister [Rand], you asked for it."

Thing is, if altruism-collectivism becomes accepted as a reduced and 'de-fanged' concept, rational selfishness becomes pretty much toothless, too.

I don't agree.

Furthermore, I think that the "fangs" Rand put on altruism-collectivism are partly her invention, as indicated above. Her use of "altruism" is tricky, since her meaning derives directly from Comte. I suppose that she actually read some of his work - in French, at which language she was fluent. But even by the time Atlas Shrugged was published, "altruism" in common English parlance (I don't know about French) had lost its Comtean meaning and come to mean general caring and concern for others. Although Rand to an extent shows awareness of this change, she tends to do so in a way which impugns the motives of those who don't use the term as she does, and which furthermore indicates that her meaning is the "correct" meaning (as if there is such a thing as a "correct" in the sense of "true" meaning of a word).

As I've mentioned on another thread, I've been rereading Rand's early 1960 lecture "Faith and Force...." It's a lecture which was given at Yale, Brooklyn College, and Columbia. Rand starts by, in effect, castigating the professors attending the talk (great way, not, to encourage their receptivity to her message). Then she announces by fiat what "altruism" is, sandwiching in a string of descriptions. Then she extends the meaning widely and retroactively.

Typical of the method she subsequently used. Poor, I think, at salesmanship (except to her enthusiasts), and irresponsible methodologically.

Ellen

Evidently, I don't agree with most of this. First, the semantic argument of what "selfish" , or "altruism" mean. I recall you once criticized Rand for using the "virtue of selfishness" - because you said she'd put her own spin on "selfish" (i.e. "concern for oneself") or words to that effect. Now, you fault her for not following what you perceive as the changed, "common English parlance" of altruism and for sticking to the original Comtean meaning.

Secondly, what came first, the phenomenon, or the word? Comte observed it in society that men would sacrifice themselves for the greater good - and he made a normative judgement: "This is good. I will nominate it altruism".

Rand observed the same thing, and said (in effect) - I agree with Comte, that many men sacrifice their physical selves and their material benefits - and so, their minds, or spirituality as well - to 'the other'.

She made the judgement that it is evil.

If Comte had not have existed, she could have called it "splodge-ism". It would still be evil. But, whatever you call it, it has always been around, surely with its roots in tribal man.

It appears as if men have diluted and compromised that concept to avoid facing the full impact of their self-sacrifice. Also, since the moral climate grants them prestige for demonstrating altruism (to the little it can be lived up to). Also, because it 'feels good'.

"Caring and concern", is caring and concern - no more, no less. There is no dichotomy here to the rationally selfish.

Altruism is above everything else, the advocacy - by guilt or by force - of subordinating one's mind to anonymous others.

It is much greater as concept than simple concern.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Evidently, I don't agree with most of this. First, the semantic argument of what "selfish" , or "altruism" mean. I recall you once criticized Rand for using the "virtue of selfishness" - because you said she'd put her own spin on "selfish" (i.e. "concern for oneself") or words to that effect. Now, you fault her for not following what you perceive as the changed, "common English parlance" of altruism and for sticking to the original Comtean meaning.

It's the same problem in both cases. The problem is her using a meaning at variance with common parlance use of a term and insisting that her meaning is the "right" meaning - and managing to produce needless misunderstanding on the part of people who aren't aware that they have to learn a Rand-decreed vocabulary to get what she's talking about.

I'll give an example from another area, cosmology. The term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle as a pejorative. People adopted it, however, as the name for the mainstream theory. Suppose someone were to insist on using the term in the way Hoyle did. Unless the person engaged in repeated explanation, the likely result is that the person would be misunderstood.

Secondly, what came first, the phenomenon, or the word? Comte observed it in society that men would sacrifice themselves for the greater good - and he made a normative judgement: "This is good. I will nominate it altruism".

Rand observed the same thing, and said (in effect) - I agree with Comte, that many men sacrifice their physical selves and their material benefits - and so, their minds, or spirituality as well - to 'the other'.

She made the judgement that it is evil.

If Comte had not have existed, she could have called it "splodge-ism". It would still be evil. But, whatever you call it, it has always been around, surely with its roots in tribal man.

For one thing, she did more than the observing and evaluating you describe. She didn't limit her meaning to the particulars you indicate.

For another, you've presumed that to sacrifice one's physical self and material benefits for others is, inherently, to sacrifice one's mind or spirituality as well.

(Also, I suspect that you're meaning "sacrifice" in Rand's upside-down meaning.)

For another, the claim that "it has always been around, surely with its roots in tribal man" enters a very muddy territory of ignored realities of human evolution and early conditions. How could Rand's ethics of "rational self-interest" possibly have been adopted, I wonder, by our ancient ancestors - at any time prior to the development of civilization and even post the development of civilization up to the pretty recent past? By "pretty recent," I mean about the time of the Industrial Revolution.

Ellen

[anthony]

Ellen,

I think your last is a good observation I've wondered about. At what point in human history would tribalism have become moot?

When would the first men and women possess enough knowledge and tools to be able to break away, and go it alone, and survive - as rationally selfish individuals? Not all at once, obviously, but the drive to independence must have steadily gained momentum.

Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

From this, she must have been aware that altruism-collectivism had its utility, once. One could make the argument that it was in fact moral to subordinate oneself to the tribe - once upon a time.

As for your "Rand-decreed vocabulary".

Basically, when you get it, you get it. If one takes the trouble, and allows her a 'charitable read' to take out her meaning.

Mostly, it looks to me that some people don't get it because they don't want to. If anything, making it more palatable for marketing purposes would be counter-productive, I believe.

"Sacrifice" loses all its significance if used as giving up a lesser value for a greater. That makes nonsense of it.

Not me, but Rand made it often clear that self-sacrifice is in totality of mind and body. That quote (I posted yesterday) that she enthusiastically endorsed from Goldwater's book bears it out:

"The economic and spiritual aspects of man's nature are inextricably intertwined".[b. Goldwater]

(Her "spiritual" and his, are very different though.)

[Brant Gaede]

For another, the claim that "it has always been around, surely with its roots in tribal man" enters a very muddy territory of ignored realities of human evolution and early conditions. How could Rand's ethics of "rational self-interest" possibly have been adopted, I wonder, by our ancient ancestors - at any time prior to the development of civilization and even post the development of civilization up to the pretty recent past? By "pretty recent," I mean about the time of the Industrial Revolution.

Ellen

Rand considered civilization to be man freeing himself from man. Not sure if I recall this exactly, but I got the point. Tribal societies are mostly and basically hunter-gatherer. The development of wide-spread grain farming starting in Mesopotamia broke that mold and humanity got armies and cities and kings. True civilization had a lot to do with neutering kings, first by religion then by philosophers coincident with the start of the Industrial Revolution. Rand, by the way, took this essential individualism and went way too far with it, way beyond empirical objectification, if only to make her point. If she had been more broadly educated, I doubt we'd have ever heard of her.

--Brant

edit: "Man from men"--close, but yes, a cigar!

Edited October 11, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Just so it wasn't Adam]

First of all, you screamed the last time and wanted more...however, being the respectful slut that I am, you need to stop sending me your desired weekend pre-paid debit cards...

A...

[Samson Corwell]

Here comes Greece for one, as usual bouncing between Socialism and Fascism and believing there is a difference.

Poor Greece is so confused. They managed to do the impossible: simultaneously elect Nazis and communists.

[Brant Gaede]

Here comes Greece for one, as usual bouncing between Socialism and Fascism and believing there is a difference.

Poor Greece is so confused. They managed to do the impossible: simultaneously elect Nazis and communists.

That's what happened in Germany before Hitler was offered power.

--Brant

which thuggery will win?

[Samson Corwell]

Altruism is above everything else, the advocacy - by guilt or by force - of subordinating one's mind to anonymous others.

Most people would use the word "slavery" instead.

[Samson Corwell]

Here comes Greece for one, as usual bouncing between Socialism and Fascism and believing there is a difference.

Poor Greece is so confused. They managed to do the impossible: simultaneously elect Nazis and communists.

That's what happened in Germany before Hitler was offered power.

--Brant

which thuggery will win?

Dang it. I see now that my statement is ineffectual.

[anthony]

Altruism is above everything else, the advocacy - by guilt or by force - of subordinating one's mind to anonymous others.

Most people would use the word "slavery" instead.

Much worse than slavery is unquestioning compliance that your being sacrificed is necessary and right. Any self-respecting slave would say: You might own my body, but never my mind.

[Brant Gaede]

Here comes Greece for one, as usual bouncing between Socialism and Fascism and believing there is a difference.

Poor Greece is so confused. They managed to do the impossible: simultaneously elect Nazis and communists.

That's what happened in Germany before Hitler was offered power.

--Brant

which thuggery will win?

Dang it. I see now that my statement is ineffectual.

I didn't mean to cause any harm.

--Brant

contrite

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm breaking Tony's #185 into sections to reply to it.

Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

From this, she must have been aware that altruism-collectivism had its utility, once. One could make the argument that it was in fact moral to subordinate oneself to the tribe - once upon a time.

But then it wasn't "altruism-collectivism" as she defines those. Or subordinating oneself either. A lot of opportunity, not, members of a hunter-gatherer band would have had to develop much in the way of a "self."

Occasionally Rand did show an awareness that circumstances might have been different once upon a (long stretch of) time. But other places she talks as if there was some sort of con-game played by tribal chiefs and "witch doctors" from the get go.

Eventually I hope to compile some of her references to early human life.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Sacrifice" loses all its significance if used as giving up a lesser value for a greater. That makes nonsense of it.

I wonder if anyone in fact ever gives up something the person perceives as a higher value for the sake of a lower one.

There are circumstances in which a person might, for instance, sell something "at a sacrifice," meaning at a lower price than the purchase price and/or the perceived value of the item. But these are cases where the person judges the need for ready money as outweighing the loss - or maybe a need to clear out old inventory from a store, or to get rid of items a person can't take along in a move to a new location.

I think that what makes a transaction or a renunciation a "sacrifice" is that the value given up is difficult, to some extent, to give up for the sake of a perceived higher value.

I once heard a woman explain "sacrifice" in what I thought was an admirably clear fashion.

This was at a lecture meeting of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology (CAJP). The subject pertained to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God's command (which God then rescinded before the sacrifice was made).

Larry had attended the lecture with me that night, and in the Q&A he asked if the lecturer meant by "sacrifice" the giving up of a higher value for a lower value.

A woman sitting a few rows in front of Larry and me turned and promptly answered, "NO! That's backward. 'Sacrifice' is giving up something which is painful to give up for the sake of something more important. For instance, I want to take a trip to Europe this summer, but I want more to help my daughter with her college expenses, and I can't afford to do both. So I'm giving up the Europe trip to help my daughter. That's a 'sacrifice.'"

The lecturer concurred with the explanation, and other audience members nodded agreeing, some of them looking quizzically at Larry as if wondering how he'd gotten it so backward, while I sat there chuckling, since I'd told Larry for years that what people at large meant by "sacrifice" wasn't what Rand said - and Larry sat there looking astonished, and afterward commented on the woman's being completely clear on what she meant, and its being as I'd told him, backward from what Rand said "sacrifice" means. Rand, of course, would not have called the woman's giving up a European trip she wanted to take a sacrifice, since the woman valued helping her daughter more, although it was difficult for her to give up the trip.

My suspicion is that where Rand got her upside-down meaning of "sacrifice" was from the story of Christ. There's a passage in Galt's Speech which indicates this, but I haven't time now to look up and quote the passage.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

As for your "Rand-decreed vocabulary".

Basically, when you get it, you get it. If one takes the trouble, and allows her a 'charitable read' to take out her meaning.

Mostly, it looks to me that some people don't get it because they don't want to. If anything, making it more palatable for marketing purposes would be counter-productive, I believe.

The issue isn't "making it more palatable," but that of not sowing confusion, illogic, and misinformation. Plus not presenting contradictory messages.

The purpose of my ethics is to teach you to live and enjoy yourself, Galt says. Only the heroic can practice my ethics, Rand intimates rather constantly and sometimes outright says.

So which is it? If her ethics is actually such a boon to human life, then wouldn't it be eagerly turned to if presented as such?

You echo with your "some people don't get it because they don't want to" a theme of Rand's that portrays some people as hell-bent on destruction. Quite a lot of "some" people. People can act as suicidal animals, she says, and mainly have done so.

Furthermore, what is it one gets when one gets it? A total fabric shot through with overgeneralizations and non-evidence-based assertions. Damage to one's thinking, I think, in getting it in whole.

About marketing, I've been thinking lately that if Objectivism had been presented differently, we might today have an American populace enough of whom understand what the Affordable HealthCare Act means to have prevented its passage.

It isn't possible to redo the history of Objectivism's presentation, but I have a feeling of "if only"s - although maybe Rand wouldn't have psychologically been able to use different methods than were used.

Regarding the title of The Virtue of Selfishness - a title which I think was a mistake because of its handing misunderstanding to detractors on a silver platter - one possibility, obviously, would have been the exact The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest. Calling Rand an "apostle of rational self-interest" just wouldn't have the negative clout which calling her an "apostle of selfishness" has. The title is kind of flat, though, as a title. Another possibility I've thought of is Rationality: The Unknown Virtue, parallel to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, but the latter title was thought of after The Virtue of Selfishness was published, so thinking of it would have needed anticipation of a book title yet to come.

On October 11, in the midst of some thoughts about the disjunct between an ethics for living and enjoying life and the message that only the heroic can cut it, a tittle I really like occurred to me for the first time: An Ethics for Living on Earth.

I think that that would have just as much curiosity-arousing punch as The Virtue of Selfishness while not inviting misunderstanding and that it would have militated against Rand's using the haranguing approach she often used, and did use right off the start in her Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I think the title was a good one correct considering the time and place, but the book fell down inside when she came with the weak "dictionary" definition of "concern with one's own interests." She could have hit the ground running respecting a stronger statement. She could have also pointed out that it was foundational and man's social needs reflect a more detailed presentation balancing out the selfishness by a more nuanced understanding of what that idea meant in action in her philosophy.

--Brant

[caroljane]

VOS was a grabber title and it still grabs.

[caroljane]

But it does not grab any better consumers than it ever did. Too many ready to embrace the selfishness part, too few to embrace the virtue part, too many rejecting without reading on the basis of the title alone.

[Samson Corwell]

"Sacrifice" loses all its significance if used as giving up a lesser value for a greater. That makes nonsense of it.

I wonder if anyone in fact ever gives up something the person perceives as a higher value for the sake of a lower one.

There are circumstances in which a person might, for instance, sell something "at a sacrifice," meaning at a lower price than the purchase price and/or the perceived value of the item. But these are cases where the person judges the need for ready money as outweighing the loss - or maybe a need to clear out old inventory from a store, or to get rid of items a person can't take along in a move to a new location.

I think that what makes a transaction or a renunciation a "sacrifice" is that the value given up is difficult, to some extent, to give up for the sake of a perceived higher value.

I once heard a woman explain "sacrifice" in what I thought was an admirably clear fashion.

This was at a lecture meeting of the Connecticut Association for Jungian Psychology (CAJP). The subject pertained to Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac at God's command (which God then rescinded before the sacrifice was made).

Larry had attended the lecture with me that night, and in the Q&A he asked if the lecturer meant by "sacrifice" the giving up of a higher value for a lower value.

A woman sitting a few rows in front of Larry and me turned and promptly answered, "NO! That's backward. 'Sacrifice' is giving up something which is painful to give up for the sake of something more important. For instance, I want to take a trip to Europe this summer, but I want more to help my daughter with her college expenses, and I can't afford to do both. So I'm giving up the Europe trip to help my daughter. That's a 'sacrifice.'"

The lecturer concurred with the explanation, and other audience members nodded agreeing, some of them looking quizzically at Larry as if wondering how he'd gotten it so backward, while I sat there chuckling, since I'd told Larry for years that what people at large meant by "sacrifice" wasn't what Rand said - and Larry sat there looking astonished, and afterward commented on the woman's being completely clear on what she meant, and its being as I'd told him, backward from what Rand said "sacrifice" means. Rand, of course, would not have called the woman's giving up a European trip she wanted to take a sacrifice, since the woman valued helping her daughter more, although it was difficult for her to give up the trip.

My suspicion is that where Rand got her upside-down meaning of "sacrifice" was from the story of Christ. There's a passage in Galt's Speech which indicates this, but I haven't time now to look up and quote the passage.

Ellen

Well, that must've been a breath of fresh air!