The Police vs. The Blacks

[Selene]

This is a sketch found buried in a mayonnaise jar found under Peter's back porch and it lays out his theory that the darkies will pollute the white race and make them eat only yellow bananas... He bases this conclusion on the character played by Lincoln Perry... See how slow he is...https://www.youtube.com/embed/AQl2GoEbPys"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> What Peter does not know, is that black folks play white folks like Peter all the time... Here Jimmy Walker explains the Stepin Fetchit act...:

By the mid-1930s, Perry was at his peak — and black leaders were putting pressure on Hollywood to rid the screen of the stereotype he was responsible for creating. They believed the Stepin Fetchit character was keeping white America from viewing blacks as capable of joining the mainstream. Comedian Jimmy Walker knows something about being accused of perpetuating a negative stereotype. His portrayal of J.J. Evans in the sitcom Good Times was criticized as a return of the minstrel show. "The way they make it sound, it's like black people are permanently harmed by Stepin Fetchit," Walker says. "And I don't agree with that — I don't think it's a bad character. I think it's a funny character." Walker points out that the Fetchit character is actually a subversive trickster — he never got around to fetching anything.

"The lazy man character that [Perry] played was based on something that had come from slavery," Watkins says. "It was called 'putting on old massa' — break the tools, break the hoe, do anything to postpone the work that was to be done." Finally, the white characters would become exasperated and do the work themselves. "And blacks understood it perfectly, and laughed heartily at it," Watkins says. For his part, Perry was laughing all the way to the bank. By the mid-1930s, he was a millionaire with a fleet of luxury cars and expensive suits.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5245089 Edited September 16, 2015 by Selene

[Peter]

Origins of the article not verified? Hmmm? I saw it months ago and then a couple of day's ago. I did accept its bona fides as stated and did think it was copied from the Baltimore Sun. If it were not then its origins are suspect even if its thoughts and intellectual points are there for all to interpret.

And I agree with Brant that people of African descent were progressing socially at a faster pace before the great society. The solution to that would horrify current Progressives. Do away with government welfare while keeping a safety net for now, and then ignoring the perpetual problem as did past generations of non African Americans. Let charity pick up the slack. Do you want to ignore the thug, criminal culture, of violence, drugs, rap/chanting, little education, the politics of victimization, sports, and being stupid? I recognize it for what it is.

Withdrawing Government would mean natural forces would strengthen the ghetto-ized, segregated system that occurs with or without government. I seem to remember some actual science like average IQ was discussed on the thread Race and IQ.

Peter

[Selene]

It's those damn yellow banana's!

<<<leads to >>>

Hope this does not make you feel harassed Peter...

[anthony]

For the life of me, I can't remember the writer and title of a book written by the head of a Johannesburg based bureau - AP maybe?

He began the book recounting standing by the bank of a Central African river and watching bodies float by. He related his many experiences over decades in the length of Africa, covering famine, disease, poverty, repression, war and genocide. I remember it ended with his heart-felt gratitude that so many years before, his forefather had been forced onto a ship to be taken to the New World a slave. Anyone remember it? It caused a stir, of course.

'Arthur and George' is an extraordinary novel by a favourite author of mine. It plumbs the depth of English racism then, of an innocent and scholastic gentle man, Indian and always proudly British. Based on a true story about Conan Doyle's support of him against trumped-up charges.

[RobinReborn]

Brant wrote: btw, your post is accidentally albeit implicitly racist, for you attribute to blacks what is attributable to most people who are slow and difficult to change.

end quote

Of course, if you are slow, it is harder to learn. Yet, you may be falling into the Social Justice Warrior trap, Brant. The letter was anecdotal but it was implicitly rational. Consider statistics. If we examined 1000 Americans of East Indian origin and 1000 Americans of English origin and 45 percent of the East Indians score high in math and Americans of English origin score 35 percent and it tests that way for 100 years, would you come to any conclusions? You might say the East Indians are still under the influence of their previous, mathematical culture, but what if they thought of themselves as American as they come?

What statistics are we considering? You give no citations. If you look into IQ data you'll find that it's not stable over time. One hundred years ago, askenazi jews were a standard deviation below average, now they're a standard deviation above. You find that trend in many populations, it's called the Flynn Effect.

Statistically, the IQ’s of blacks is dependent upon how much of their genetic structure is Negroid. THEN on top of that, factor in the culture and family life they embrace. Nature and nurture are tied together to the outcome but some folks will never get Calculus or Ayn Rand’s novels. As Sherlock Holmes said, in The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890): How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

It is dependent on many things. Recent studies have shown that a student's motivation affects how well they do on tests. Furthermore, if minorities are told before they take a test that the test isn't culturally biased they'll do better. This finding has been replicated dozens of times in the past decade or so, it's called "Stereotype Threat"

[Peter]

Tony wrote: 'Arthur and George' is an extraordinary novel by a favourite author of mine. It plumbs the depth of English racism then, of an innocent and scholastic gentle man, Indian and always proudly British.

Bravo! You used a "u" in the word, favorite too, which gives you a British sensibility. I was impressed with Doc Martin's (Martin Clunes) nearly effortless slide into the character, with different facial expressions, culture, speech and accent. As was done with Doc Martin, perhaps this three part-er will turn into a series.

What was most fascinating to me is when Doyle, to solve a mystery, tries to *become* his fictional sleuth, Sherlock Holmes. It is actually more real than Basil Rathbone portraying a nearly omniscient Holmes.

Peter

[anthony]

The moral of the story? Forget IQ.

It is all and only about value of life, which means value in one's own life. Where and when it's deficient is always where there exists collectivism, collective identification (and self-identification) collective guilt, collective victimhood, collective entitlement.

[Peter]

I know about the Flynn Effect. It's time frame is usually one or two generations. It is evidenced in South Africa, but can it last when the dominant culture reverts as in South Africa? More is in play than influence. The statistics I reference can be found in The Bell Curve and even Thomas Sowell's rebuttal.

Peter

edited. I misspeeellled Effect, affect.

[Peter]

Adam, I like a good send up but yours are not worth the effort.

[Selene]

Brant wrote: btw, your post is accidentally albeit implicitly racist, for you attribute to blacks what is attributable to most people who are slow and difficult to change.

end quote

Of course, if you are slow, it is harder to learn. Yet, you may be falling into the Social Justice Warrior trap, Brant. The letter was anecdotal but it was implicitly rational. Consider statistics. If we examined 1000 Americans of East Indian origin and 1000 Americans of English origin and 45 percent of the East Indians score high in math and Americans of English origin score 35 percent and it tests that way for 100 years, would you come to any conclusions? You might say the East Indians are still under the influence of their previous, mathematical culture, but what if they thought of themselves as American as they come?

What statistics are we considering? You give no citations. If you look into IQ data you'll find that it's not stable over time. One hundred years ago, askenazi jews were a standard deviation below average, now they're a standard deviation above. You find that trend in many populations, it's called the Flynn Effect.

Statistically, the IQ’s of blacks is dependent upon how much of their genetic structure is Negroid. THEN on top of that, factor in the culture and family life they embrace. Nature and nurture are tied together to the outcome but some folks will never get Calculus or Ayn Rand’s novels. As Sherlock Holmes said, in The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890): How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

It is dependent on many things. Recent studies have shown that a student's motivation affects how well they do on tests. Furthermore, if minorities are told before they take a test that the test isn't culturally biased they'll do better. This finding has been replicated dozens of times in the past decade or so, it's called "Stereotype Threat"

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

[anthony]

The aspect of "IQ" that I think makes it a red herring is considering it as sociological, not as philosophical. I am not doubting that if looking at the progress or lack, of billions of people in vacuo in one geographical area and primitive era - over many, many generations - there will show a certain trend and a general causality, according to the average IQ of those people.

Sure, in the aggregate over long periods IQ adds up, to the benefit, great or small, of a mass of people.

It is a frozen abstraction, however, nothing to do with any single individual. Today, largely absent of any isolation from more previously-advanced nations, each of us comes into the world (within variables of one's "station in life") equally knowing nothing, but inheriting a good structure of what went before and was made and developed by others. How much each person will add to this aggregate of civilisation is moot, mostly not much on the grand stage - but the ethics that it must be one's life duty to struggle to do so for those 'others' should meet the contempt it deserves.

But by and large, the structure benefits all of us, given reasonable freedom to access it.

How little one's particular IQ compared to any other's has to do with it! E.g. You may understand how a modern internal combustion engine works, but not even with genius IQ be able to invent it and build one from scratch. Here's the benefit from all those known and unknown individuals in relays who each selfishly pushed the knowledge a little or a lot further - we can only appreciate and run with it to our advantage. That's where individual value comes in.

The question that really matters then, is not what the mean IQ of a group of people is - it's why any group will insist on self-identifying as "a group" in the first place. Equally is the error of viewing 'them' as a group, too. Deriving one's status (or presuming their inferiority) from 'others' is bad reasoning leading to bad ethics. Objective value and individualism defeats IQ every time. It's a self-defining volitional choice that anyone of any level of IQ can and must make.

[Peter]

whYNOT wrote: The question that really matters then, is not what the mean IQ of a group of people is - it's why any group will insist on being "a group" in the first place. Equally, the error of viewing 'them' as a group, too. Deriving one's status (or presuming their inferiority) from 'others' is bad reasoning leading to bad ethics. Objective value and individualism defeats IQ every time.
end quote

If I write that the individual talents found in different races is something to be examined scientifically or that I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs invented something else,” you might respond: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. Then, I would know what you are saying is to discredit the concept of *reification* and I am with you to a degree.

From Britannica:
Reification . . . the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing.
end quote

A person against using reification might say that the only humans that actually exist and have rights, and for whom anything can be good or bad, or who can invent something, are individuals. Nations, such as China, South Africa, or America do not in fact exist except as figures of speech.

However if a person were to say they agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development or that through research the fact was revealed that the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp . . . then you are also reifying even if you go by the theory that there are only individuals.

It is ridiculous to NOT just say, “The Chinese,” did this, and know you understand me. So, yes the smallest minority is the individual, but sociological concepts also have their place. Now if I were a Marxist you would be correct to call me out for my reifications, if I called humanity the masses, the proletariat, etc., because those labels are vigorously disputed, just like Freud’s id, ego, and superego. I have no qualms about saying, Ayn Rand achieved what she did by standing on the shoulders of Giants, because, unless you are being picky, you know what I meant by Giants. It’s quicker, simpler, and a way to automatize concepts.

To go back a bit further Ayn wrote:
A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. [iTOE, p. 5.]

Someone once criticized this quote by writing:
So "sensations, as such, are *not* retained by man's memory," but (some) *groups* of sensations *are* thus retained -- and retained *automatically*. But if sensations, "as such," are not "retained" by our memories, how is it that one's "brain" is able to retain them -- even in "groups" -- while it performs the task of "integration"? And if a percept *is* a "group of sensations," isn't it true that our memories *do* "retain" sensations? Or are our sensations transformed into something else by this mysterious process of "integration" (on which Rand nowhere sees fit to elaborate)? And does all of this mean we can't remember single sensations? As Rand would say: Blank-out.
end quote

Tony, would you agree that sports in South Africa are somewhat divided along ethnic lines? Soccer is particularly popular amongst black people, Cricket with whites, and Rugby is mostly popular among people of Afrikaner descent? I will accept someone’s reifications as long as they don’t start harping on “The Masses” or incorrectly state what all “Objectivists” think, unless I think so too. I could say Roger Maris won the World Series but it would be more correct to give the victory to The Yankees.
Peter

Allen Weingarten wrote: Now there is a theory called "methodological individualism" where to quote Ludwig von Mises "all actions are performed by individuals…a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual member's actions." Mises is often used as the source for objections to employing social entities. Here, some O’s and L’s conclude that only individuals exist, using him as a source. Yet even he writes "It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors, determining the course of human events" (Human Action p. 42).

Once one claims that groups and social entities have no real existence, he must logically conclude that there is no reality to "individual rights" but only the rights of a given person. Nor are there such things as "protests", but only a given act of protesting. One cannot be a "collectivist" or a "utilitarian". Nor can there be an "American government" or any “government” at all, for there can only be the individuals that comprise it. Moreover, there can be no such thing as capitalism, socialism, government intervention, or even immigration. In the end, this becomes silly.
end quote

[anthony]

Peter, A thought for now while I'm thinking this through, is not to overlook hierarchy (of knowledge and value) in all this.

A person may self-identify as "a rugby player", while engaged in the sport and its peripheral activities. At the same time the player can have a profession as a doctor or bricklayer, and be a part of the 'groups' that come with them. At the same time, he's a father and husband. And he's South African. And he's black. And so on.

So what is he?

If his conviction is of being a sovereign individual, above all, and he consistently bears it out in action, that's then how a rational person will treat him.

Which doesn't detract from or contradict his entirety, the 'parts of his sum', so to speak.

I think his conviction takes no more than 'average' intelligence, an act of will, self-confidence and an independent mind. He only has to look and experience, trust his vision and his conclusions.

(The beauty in fact of this philosophy is that it is observation based, with the simplest identifications connecting to ones a little more complex, and to those even more complex, and so on, hierarchically. Measuring one's concepts against reality - i.e. applying and implementing them to new facts - is not difficult, most absorbing and enlightening - and there's no pressing urgency beyond one's own desire. Even a 'slow' thinker will get there. One could say, one's philosophy is as big as one's honest efforts aided by intelligence, make it to be. Where high intelligence would be invaluable, is for the scholars - who need to attain, hold and contrast even higher concepts (hard or impossible for average Joes, like me). But it 'works' at every level one has reached thus far. It is a philosophy to USE, not only to study).

I'll have to think about "culture" some more.

[RobinReborn]

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

There's no admonishment, just asking him to give me his sources.

I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character.

And FYI, I'm not the only one to mention the Flynn Effect in this thread. I would hope it would be common knowledge among people in this community.

[Brant Gaede]

It's a simple Google. I'm not impressed with this "Effect." There are too many changes across the decades, not from nature but nurture and in the tests themselves. All IQ does is measure against the current peer group. You can't say present day takers of yesterday's tests show anything but the score differences. You can't use that to say they are more intelligent than those who took the test way back then without revealing your own lack of analytical brainpower. Fortunately, that's not how smart you are but how you use your smarts. It might have been smart of someone (or ones) to make a career for himself, but it strikes me as academic fluff statistically buffed up.

--Brant

and the professors go yadda yadda yadda and the student debt goes higher higher higher--doesn't that prove the students are dumber dumber dumber (I mean, compare the student debt loads across several generations)?

[Selene]

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character.

Lose the victim hood crap and don't assume that the "reader" that Michael refers to who is just visiting can get the most out of your post.

A...

[Peter]

Brant wrote, “You can't use that to say they are more intelligent than those who took the test way back then . . . ”

I agree. If you took the test from 50 years ago you might do less well on it because a lot of questions may have pertained to that time period. If you have ever watched, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, you know today’s IQ questions may not correspond to what you have learned up to this point.

It is biker week in Ocean City. I had them tail gating me, beside me and in front of me and the exhaust and noise was horrible. But then I think of all the money coming into this county and wonder if my taxes will be lower because of the Millions of bucks the bikers are going to spend. Two years ago a waiter I know said the bikers tipped better than The Cruisers (old car aficionados) who come in a few more weeks but last year the Cruisers tipped better.
Peter

[RobinReborn]

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character.

Lose the victim hood crap and don't assume that the "reader" that Michael refers to who is just visiting can get the most out of your post.

A...

Lose the superiority narrative.

The reader who is visiting is seeing you as a condescending bully who isn't contributing anything, I'm not a victim because I don't take you seriously.

[Backlighting]

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character.

Lose the victim hood crap and don't assume that the "reader" that Michael refers to who is just visiting can get the most out of your post.

A...

Lose the superiority narrative.

The reader who is visiting is seeing you as a condescending bully who isn't contributing anything, I'm not a victim because I don't take you seriously.

Robin,

Disagree with A...as you see fit.

But to say he isn't contributing anything & is a bully is bullshit.

You obviously haven't read & digested his many posts (contributions).

Wish there were more like him on the Board.

-J

[Selene]

delete

[Selene]

Want to be the under card on the alley fight between Jonathan and Wolf...

 

                                                                                         

 

                                                             VERSUS

 

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf? Wolf's not fighting. Where did you get that idea?

I guess that's why someone else is?

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

If this is the "new and improved" "reborn" Robin I wonder how much of a f#%k up the old one was?

"Snickers".

[anthony]

whYNOT wrote: The question that really matters then, is not what the mean IQ of a group of people is - it's why any group will insist on being "a group" in the first place. Equally, the error of viewing 'them' as a group, too. Deriving one's status (or presuming their inferiority) from 'others' is bad reasoning leading to bad ethics. Objective value and individualism defeats IQ every time.

end quote

If I write that the individual talents found in different races is something to be examined scientifically or that I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs invented something else,” you might respond: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. Then, I would know what you are saying is to discredit the concept of *reification* and I am with you to a degree.

From Britannica:

Reification . . . the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing.

end quote

A person against using reification might say that the only humans that actually exist and have rights, and for whom anything can be good or bad, or who can invent something, are individuals. Nations, such as China, South Africa, or America do not in fact exist except as figures of speech.

However if a person were to say they agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development or that through research the fact was revealed that the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp . . . then you are also reifying even if you go by the theory that there are only individuals.

It is ridiculous to NOT just say, “The Chinese,” did this, and know you understand me. So, yes the smallest minority is the individual, but sociological concepts also have their place. Now if I were a Marxist you would be correct to call me out for my reifications, if I called humanity the masses, the proletariat, etc., because those labels are vigorously disputed, just like Freud’s id, ego, and superego. I have no qualms about saying, Ayn Rand achieved what she did by standing on the shoulders of Giants, because, unless you are being picky, you know what I meant by Giants. It’s quicker, simpler, and a way to automatize concepts.

Peter, on collectivism and reification, the distinction I see is that a "collection" of individuals will validly be all those things, a race, a society, a culture, a sports team, etc. . This cannot oppose the fact that the final component of a collection is still the individual, no more or less. Conversely, collectivism to my mind, is to borrow and derive one's identity from the 'nature' - whatever one arbitrarily feels it to be - of the "collection", and not from man's metaphysical nature.

A culture, I think I recall from Rand, is the predominant philosophy of a people or nation; which seems fair enough. Naturally, this is always so complex, confusing and mixed that it may defy a complete analysis . In what may be for a long time in one country, a preponderance of a self-reponsible, individualist culture - there would certainly be a majority of individuals there proudly "identifying" with that culture. As long as it exists in reality, the culture remains true to the individual. But the individualist culture is the result of individualism, not the cause.

South Africa - in its colonial, then apartheid past and ANC present - has never moved far from a collectivist culture. I'm hearing increasingly about how we should return to our African roots which is simple tribal collectivism (e.g. "It takes a village to raise a child" ...) I have the belief that basically what white settlers and 'colonists' did bring to this Continent, over and above all the rest, is their European post-Renaissance individualism. But largely by their grievous fault (if not always) and because of their smaller numbers, they would not or could not entirely involve native Africans in their culture, and the fall-out from that continues and worsens.

[Peter]

Tony asked: How does this oppose the fact that the final component of a collection is still the individual, no more or less?
end quote

Individualism must be *felt* within a culture for humans to prosper. A human toddler understands that he is an individual but only later does he accept the concept of being part of the first grade *group.* At the same time we feel that we are adult individuals we also briefly like to become part of a group experience as when you are sitting in the home team’s section at a sporting event. Don’t you love it when the crowd roars, “Go Team,” or “We will, we will rock you!”? Yet it can be taken too far as with a Nazi rally. But for higher level conceptualization we need to generalize and add components together while always understanding that any subgroup of humanity can be traced to the thoughts of one human. The group called South Africans exists as a higher level concept but an Individual living in South Africa is the base rock existent. It is a choice whether to reify or always insist there is no such thing as a group. Just don’t ever go through customs and present your passport or you will be guilty of accepting the concept of *the group.*
Peter

Notes.
From Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right” by Jennifer Burns, page 100: “When she arrived in California she was working on her first non-fiction book, a project she eventually abandoned in favor of her third novel. Much as “The Fountainhead” had showcased her ideas about individualism, this book would reflect Rand’s growing fealty to reason and rationality. After three years in California Rand had redefined the goal of her writing. Once Individualism had been the motive power of her work; now she explained to a correspondent, “Do you know that my personal crusade in life, (in the philosophical sense) is not merely to fight collectivism, nor to fight altruism? These are only consequences, effects, and not causes. I am out after the real cause, the real root of evil on earth – the irrational.”

Soon after this development came Rand’s dawning awareness of the differences that separated her from the libertarians or “reactionaries” she now considered her set. At issue was her opposition to altruism and, more significantly, her unwillingness to compromise with those who defended traditional values. In 1943 Rand had been one of the few voices to make a compelling case for capitalism and limited government. In the years that followed she would become part of a chorus, a role that did not suit her well.”
end quote

Ellen Lewit wrote: When Ayn Rand talked about value there was always the statement of value for what purpose and for whom. The fact that someone was making the decision wasn't always explicit but it is implied and obvious. The principle of individualism was built into her method of talking about values and I believe it can be treated as a kind of axiom of human nature that is part of the premises behind ethics.
end quote

From: BBfromM@aol.com, To: atlantis@wetheliving.com, Subject: Re: ATL: Normal Distributions and Human Differences Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:16:15 EDT
David Bozzini wrote: I am often amused to find the following attitude, even among presumably educated persons: "There just can't be any differences between races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, or any other ability that might matter in the real world."

I don't think anyone has been arguing that there are no differences among races or ethnic groups in their IQ's. The argument is about what – if anything -- follows from that. Some say that because of differences in IQ, the lower IQ groups should be seen as inferiors and refused admittance to the United States, and that those already here should be repatriated. Others insist that people should be judged as individuals, and that the average IQ of their group is irrelevant to any judgment of the individual. The argument is about individualism versus collectivism.
Barbara

David Rasmussen wrote: Objectivism is, therefore, at an intellectual cross-road. It can stick to an a priori counter-factual belief about intelligence and genetics, and become another pseudo-intellectual movement like creation science, or it can, through the proper use of reason, reconcile its ideology with reality.
end quote

“Our Cultural Value-Deprivation,” The Objectivist, April 1966, 2: A social environment can neither force a man to think nor prevent him from thinking. But a social environment can offer incentives or impediments; it can make the exercise of one’s rational faculty easier or harder; it can encourage thinking and penalize evasion or vice versa.

end quote

Ellen Moore wrote: It is likely that you all know that the idea of "universalizability" is a Kantian premise, and whenever I hear it my guard goes up. As I understand it, Rand viewed universalizability as an irrational Kantian principle of "collective subjectivity", i.e., that everyone has to agree with and accept such a principle, and if there is no universal agreement and acceptance, then the principle is invalid -- and all or nothing dogma. It is my view that Rand opted for "objective contextuality"; that she viewed principles as individually reasoned and acknowledged generalizations about contextual fundamentals of knowledge. This view supports her philosophy of Individualism.

My dictionaries state a principle is as: "A general truth or law basic to other truths; 2. a standard law or rule of personal conduct." [personal means individual]

Rand states, "A principle is 'a fundamental, primary, or general truth on which other truths depend'. Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one's long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it."

Rand also wrote, "Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.' " You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational convictions – or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew... ." " When men abandon principles (i.e., their conceptual faculty) two of the major results are: individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication." "Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men."
end of quotes.