Galt's Oath

[anthony]

On 2016/08/21 at 4:02 PM, merjet said:

Money provides a measure in some cases, but I don't claim to know for many others. I can't say, and wouldn't even try to say, how to "measure" -- ranking is not measuring -- how much I value some other things and some other people.

Suppose the following as an example satisfying Galt's statement. I am driving on the highway and see an old man who is a stranger to me on the side of the road with a car that has a flat tire. He is obviously struggling. So I stop to change his tire. He offers to pay me as a token for my help, but I decline. In that case I'd say the old man is the primary/greater beneficiary of my action. How would I measure his value to me, or how would he measure the value I gave him? I have no idea. Do you have a "value measuring stick" for such an example? 

I think you are grasping at straws. Is the value perceived by the recipient, like the old man with the flat tire, irrelevant? What if the action is a trade, in which both parties both give and receive?

The last might be true once in a while. Who do you believe is the "primary beneficiary" in my tire-changing example? Who do you believe is the "primary beneficiary" in my example of a father buying braces for his daughter? How do you know? I say unreservedly the old man and the daughter.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfectly even trade of values. Over a long time and only with intimate individuals close to one, things  -sort of - even out. E.g. A single action for you by the other person, might equal six by you for him/her. The strength and support someone gives to you in character and spiritual value only, may be 'worth' several acts by you. So who's measuring, by what standards? Quantity - quality ? The point is, it doesn't matter.

Does it give 'you' (anyone) "pleasure" to help someone in distress regain their normal state? Surely that's what counts. Unforced in any way, and without guilt, service and dutifulness, is how men and women can relate amongst each other. Not even "reciprocity" - or that Golden Rule - is quite valid. Both are subjectively based. Yes, one could 'put one's self in their place'; one might also do as you hope "would be done for you". The objective manner though, I think is more to see, identify and evaluate the reality of another person (a fellow man) in trouble, and the nature of his problem - outside of other considerations - and most likely rise to the occasion without expecting and accepting reward. As long as it is not - conceivably- going to be a self-sacrificial act, your pay-off will be pleasure in seeing him on the road again .

[Peter]

Tony asked: Does it give 'you' (anyone) "pleasure" to help someone in distress regain their normal state? end quote

I think a benevolent person, is quite commonly found in human society. What they accomplish is peace of mind for those they interact with, and internally they also feel peace of mind.  Within our subconscious selves we keep track of the “good times”  . .  . and the bad . . . but the benevolent person places more emphasis on the good. I like being in a good mood and I vector away from annoying occurrences. I do not deliberately harm another creature. Now if I could just stop with the jokes . . .

Peter

From: Jimmy Wales To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800

Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual.

From “Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence”, p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary.  "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards?  I am an individualist."  But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it “is” objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning.  It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language.  But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms.  Someone who does not practice these forms is rude.  We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner).

 A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic.  "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude?  Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?"  The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it.  Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling.  (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.)

 Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully. end quote

[anthony]

On 2016/08/21 at 4:02 PM, merjet said:

Money provides a measure in some cases, but I don't claim to know for many others. I can't say, and wouldn't even try to say, how to "measure" -- ranking is not measuring -- how much I value some other things and some other people.

Suppose the following as an example satisfying Galt's statement. I am driving on the highway and see an old man who is a stranger to me on the side of the road with a car that has a flat tire. He is obviously struggling. So I stop to change his tire. He offers to pay me as a token for my help, but I decline. In that case I'd say the old man is the primary/greater beneficiary of my action. How would I measure his value to me, or how would he measure the value I gave him? I have no idea. Do you have a "value measuring stick" for such an example? 

I think you are grasping at straws. Is the value perceived by the recipient, like the old man with the flat tire, irrelevant? What if the action is a trade, in which both parties both give and receive?

The last might be true once in a while. Who do you believe is the "primary beneficiary" in my tire-changing example? Who do you believe is the "primary beneficiary" in my example of a father buying braces for his daughter? How do you know? I say unreservedly the old man and the daughter.

Merjet, I don't know why we can't communicate. I think the one problem is that you get tangled in 'primary beneficiary'.

One's life IS the primary.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

"The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully, will also reap bountifully". (2 Corinth)

Here endeth the lesson, and about exhausts my biblical recollection.

See! It's even in the Bible. Heh! Simple unbreached causality, followed logically by the next essential causality, which is that one receives the total, due rewards of his sowing and reaping. Derived from such a simple, self-evident principle, it's no wonder that Christians etc. are often excellent businessmen and have a good grasp of market economics and become wealthy. (As contrasted with the secular and the atheists who either deride the capitalist ethic or who debate the theory). Apparently, the religious received their "sanction" to work, produce and righteously prosper, from God. (See: Greg the moralist who is a good example). 'We' receive sanction from reality, metaphysics and morality, or ought to. Then the next stage of (unbreached) causation is the formulation of rights and property rights, to protect one's freedom of action and one's proceeds from it.

Worrying like dogs over a bone on who is "primary beneficiary" is crazy and I think, self-restrictive. 'You' are THE beneficiary of all your productive efforts - full stop. It's a moral injustice, when not. And who does one then 'spend' (in virtue, time, energy, knowledge, thought, affection, money, etc.) the proceeds upon? Throw them away arbitrarily to all and sundry who extorts, demands or 'needs' them? Or: On whomever or whatever is within one's scope of values, including whatever fleeting value one comes across, like an old guy with a flat tire. As your values do well so do you; as you do well and thrive, so do they.

[Peter]

If you discount some types of dissonant music, the hateful “supremacist” groups, and black criminal gang, murder rap . . . then musicians nearly always want to impart benevolence to the world. Their quest is to entertain but to also ‘spark’ foot tapping, head bobbing and smiles. Even the so called “death metal” groups want to get their fans into the mood, not to die, but to live LOUD and proud. The Olympic theme sounds like Roman grandeur to me, just as Copeland’s fanfares do. I have always thought “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini,” by Rachmaninoff was Ayn Rand’s inspiration when she wrote "The Concerto of Deliverance"

 

"The Concerto of Deliverance" Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957: She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive. It was a sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open. It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept space clean, and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort. Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance. end quote

 

And who else lived a benevolent sense of life better than Barbara Branden? From: "Barbara Branden" To: ayn rand. Subject: Re: AYN: Technicalities on charity Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:52:56 EST: Matt Totten believes that there can be no selfish reason for giving to charity, that it is an act of altruism. Matt, there are circumstances in which it is an act of altruism, and circumstances in which it is not. If I give to a charity because I believe it is my moral duty to do so, even though that charity is giving money to people I disapprove to -- say, to socialist organizations -- then that is altruism. More than that, it specifically goes against my rational self-interest.

 

But say I give to an organization I believe in, whose cause also is my cause -- say, the Institute of Justice or The Objectivist Center -- then I am helping to serve my own interests; I very much want certain ideas to be spread, and they are spreading them.

 

But again, say I give to a medical research organization, or to one that gives toys to poor children at Christmas. I do this out of a motive of benevolence, not self-sacrifice, simply because medical research is important to me and to everyone else and I wish to help make it possible, and/or because it pains me to think of children going without toys at Christmas. The motive of benevolence toward other human beings -- assuming they are not people I cannot and do not feel benevolence toward -- is a perfectly reasonable motive. It means that, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, one wishes other people well, and that if one can assist them without self-sacrifice -- sacrifice of oneself or one's values -- one will do so. And this is wholly consistent with Objectivism.

Barbara

[merjet]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Merjet, I don't know why we can't communicate. I think the one problem is that you get tangled in 'primary beneficiary'.

[snip]

Worrying like dogs over a bone on who is "primary beneficiary" is crazy and I think, self-restrictive. 'You' are THE beneficiary of all your productive efforts - full stop.

Your frame seems clear. The actor is or should be the beneficiary, period, and whether or not anybody else benefits or not is irrelevant.

There are many instances where the actor is the only beneficiary -- studying, exercising, eating, etc. There are many other instances where there are multiple beneficiaries -- all trade and more. All include the actor's self-interest. To regard other beneficiaries as irrelevant is to neglect a huge part of reality.    

[anthony]

On 2016/08/23 at 8:12 PM, merjet said:

Your frame seems clear. The actor is or should be the beneficiary, period, and whether or not anybody else benefits or not is irrelevant.

There are many instances where the actor is the only beneficiary -- studying, exercising, eating, etc. There are many other instances where there are multiple beneficiaries -- all trade and more. All include the actor's self-interest. To regard other beneficiaries as irrelevant is to neglect a huge part of reality.    

It is Rand's "frame" which is clear, and I can't see how it can be anything but self-evident, and true to how all people approximately operate in life. But you are still over-looking "a huge part of reality" which brings this all together: value. The actor must be the only beneficiary, because he must use his earned resources to discover and then, support his values - supreme of which is his life, inseparable from all his other rationally selfish, chosen and created values, human and not. "Other beneficiaries" is a red herring, I consider more mindful of a service-and-duty ethics. Combining, trading and co-operating with others for better, greater or faster yield in various enterprises, is to their advantage, equally as to the actor's. Whatever the values and virtues one brings to other rational, valuing individuals, is what one gets back from them, properly. (Virtues are also values).

[merjet]

On 9/4/2016 at 3:44 PM, anthony said:

But you are still over-looking "a huge part of reality" which brings this all together: value. The actor must be the only beneficiary

LOL. "Bring together" does not mean "obliterate", except perhaps to you. 

[anthony]

7 hours ago, merjet said:

LOL. "Bring together" does not mean "obliterate", except perhaps to you. 

I am unsure of what you mean by this, I mean by 'bring together' - to tie value to life and to rational selfishness. Value, which everybody alive ~implicitly~ or subconsciously knows he has in his life (until the point he will often voluntarily, submissively, give up something he values) has to be made objective, conscious and explicit, and rational selfishness given its proper rational foundation in existence and the nature of man's consciousness. In fact, selfishness is derived, and not even the greater part of the morality. Rationality is. 

I can't see why you should continue to be so obdurate in your interpretation of Rand's injunction, merjet. ("The actor must be the beneficiary...") It is a quite basic and simple precept, that any capitalist and libertarian should instantly recognize. Put it another way:

No other person can seize or lay moral claim to whatever your mind creates and produces, nor to the fruits of your production. This would be a moral injustice to you, with grievous consequences to your life. It is in the end the sacrifice of your mind.

After which, the producer will do what he chooses with the proceeds of his productivity, in support of his life and values - and yup, including the value he may at times see helping others in distress. Along with being able to have values, and needing them, one is also the source of value.

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/4/2016 at 0:44 PM, anthony said:

It is Rand's "frame" which is clear, and I can't see how it can be anything but self-evident, and true to how all people approximately operate in life. But you are still over-looking "a huge part of reality" which brings this all together: value. The actor must be the only beneficiary, because he must use his earned resources to discover and then, support his values - supreme of which is his life, inseparable from all his other rationally selfish, chosen and created values, human and not. "Other beneficiaries" is a red herring, I consider more mindful of a service-and-duty ethics. Combining, trading and co-operating with others for better, greater or faster yield in various enterprises, is to their advantage, equally as to the actor's. Whatever the values and virtues one brings to other rational, valuing individuals, is what one gets back from them, properly. (Virtues are also values).

"The actor must be the only beneficiary"?

You might benefit from tossing out Objectivism and starting over from scratch. If you could.

--Brant

must, must, muster must

on the Ellen Moore scale of 1- 10 you get a 13, because you're much smarter than she was

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

"The actor must be the beneficiary...") It is a quite basic and simple precept, that any capitalist and libertarian should instantly recognize.

Waaal, no. You get a free ride at birth, medical care, toys, schools, a lot of guidance from rational parents. Freebies, dude.

[BaalChatzaf]

15 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Waaal, no. You get a free ride at birth, medical care, toys, schools, a lot of guidance from rational parents. Freebies, dude.

Those "freebies"  are an investment. 

[Brant Gaede]

19 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Waaal, no. You get a free ride at birth, medical care, toys, schools, a lot of guidance from rational parents. Freebies, dude.

My parents made me work in a coal mine. I had to drag bags of coal through narrow tunnels--naked. There were about 40 of us.

--Brant

Harry and Jerry were lost in a cave in in 1843

[anthony]

On 2016/09/07 at 5:21 AM, Brant Gaede said:

"The actor must be the only beneficiary"?

You might benefit from tossing out Objectivism and starting over from scratch. If you could.

--Brant

must, must, muster must

on the Ellen Moore scale of 1- 10 you get a 13, because you're much smarter than she was

To be clear, the quote is : "man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions".

Toss out Objectivism? Ha. Not likely. I can trace, with hindsight, nearly all the past mistakes I've made, back to me obstinately experimenting and going my own relativist ethical way, vaguely in defiance of Rand's epistemology (laziness) and an objective morality. I can report that I did start "over from scratch" early, and made things so much harder on myself.

But I think there is an underlying moral concern, expressed here and other places by those versed in Objectivism and by critics. It is perhaps best framed by the question "Can an individual be ~too~ selfish?"

Brant, you might have experienced and seen this:  when an individual enters into any venture (at all) with the slightest elements of self-doubt, guilt, fear, the anxiety over 'owing' to others, others' demands, meeting others' expectations, what others 'do', lacking clarity of one's goal - etc. - he might not always fail, but his chances for success will deteriorate. Just an iota of uncertainty can be enough. And many a time it may be only simple survival at stake, not outright "flourishing".

"Too selfish"? If a person tends to subjectivism, with subjective, shifting and second handed values - and who often views others as the convenient means he can use to his ends - then any 'selfishness' he asserts (a "feel like it", predatory - ultimately, self-less - egotism) is too much. The full opposite is true for anyone who is objective minded. He would subsequently pursue his own objective goals with integrity, while being honest to others and acknowledging and respecting the sovereignty of all; those "others", who will sometimes target him or try to sacrifice his values. He cannot possibly be (rationally) selfish enough.

To employ the methods of this epistemology and the principles of a rationally selfish morality, gives one a grounding in individual certainty. I think here is the top value of O'ism. Without the certainty of his personal purpose, man can't properly function. Learning this much is part of the work done, and for the rest, the real effort - and enjoyment of discovery - begins, and Objectivism per se leaves us each to our own thinking, choices and our "moral actions" without laying down Imperatives, I'm glad to say.

[anthony]

On 2016/09/07 at 7:24 AM, wolfdevoon said:

Waaal, no. You get a free ride at birth, medical care, toys, schools, a lot of guidance from rational parents. Freebies, dude.

The nature of a child. She takes values from parents who value her existence. Before later learning from their example (hopefully) to value her self and for herself.

(or like many now, becomes an adult-child, still demanding esteem and freebies from surrogate 'parents'. "The age of infantilism", a friend of mine calls it) ;~)

[Peter]

Anthony asked, "Can an individual be ~too~ selfish?"

Odd question. Yet I do remember the people “I” disliked in life. Much of the time I cannot “not” think about them in a Howard Roark-ean fashion. It was people who showed me disdain, disinterest, NO real desire to get to know me or to listen to me, or those who showed hurtfulness to an innocent or someone I liked. Of course they have a right to associate or disdain anyone they choose “but they lost me at hello,” to rephrase Rene Zellweger in the movie, “Jerry Maguire.”

In those cases “me,” the customer, is not always right, nor is my point of view the only angle. But many people because of being “too, too selfish” cannot expect the slightest consideration from me. I might throw them a life preserver if they fell (or were pushed) off a cruise ship but my generosity ends there. I automatically draw back as if they had “bad tooth” breath.

Peter 

[anthony]

Well Peter, whoever'd show you automatic "disdain, disinterest" is unlikely to be rationally selfish. Every person one meets has potential, selfish value to one, and can be of interest in their own right. Howard Roark I don't think of that much. A great literary figure he is, in a marvellous novel, but a dramatisation nonetheless.

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

To be clear, the quote is : "man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions".

Toss out Objectivism? Ha. Not likely. I can trace, with hindsight, nearly all the past mistakes I've made, back to me obstinately experimenting and going my own relativist ethical way, vaguely in defiance of Rand's epistemology (laziness) and an objective morality. I can report that I did start "over from scratch" early, and made things so much harder on myself.

But I think there is an underlying moral concern, expressed here and other places by those versed in Objectivism and by critics. It is perhaps best framed by the question "Can an individual be ~too~ selfish?"

Brant, you might have experienced and seen this:  when an individual enters into any venture (at all) with the slightest elements of self-doubt, guilt, fear, the anxiety over 'owing' to others, others' demands, meeting others' expectations, what others 'do', lacking clarity of one's goal - etc. - he might not always fail, but his chances for success will deteriorate. Just an iota of uncertainty can be enough. And many a time it may be only simple survival at stake, not outright "flourishing".

"Too selfish"? If a person tends to subjectivism, with subjective, shifting and second handed values - and who often views others as the convenient means he can use to his ends - then any 'selfishness' he asserts (a "feel like it", predatory - ultimately, self-less - egotism) is too much. The full opposite is true for anyone who is objective minded. He would subsequently pursue his own objective goals with integrity, while being honest to others and acknowledging and respecting the sovereignty of all; those "others", who will sometimes target him or try to sacrifice his values. He cannot possibly be (rationally) selfish enough.

To employ the methods of this epistemology and the principles of a rationally selfish morality, gives one a grounding in individual certainty. I think here is the top value of O'ism. Without the certainty of his personal purpose, man can't properly function. Learning this much is part of the work done, and for the rest, the real effort - and enjoyment of discovery - begins, and Objectivism per se leaves us each to our own thinking, choices and our "moral actions" without laying down Imperatives, I'm glad to say.

You are using ideology to find your facts, maybe make some up.

--Brant

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

You are using ideology to find your facts, maybe make some up.

--Brant

That's an accusation of dishonesty, I feel. I seldom write of anything I haven't validly experienced and thought of, first hand. You don't know and can't know all that I've observed and heard mixing with many people, from all walks and morals. The "ideology" fits my induced facts (don't take my word for it, test it out on your experiences). For one thing, the main point about the deleterious effect which uncertainty and doubt have on individuals' lives is hardly new, but this I have known myself.

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

That's an accusation of dishonesty, I feel. I seldom write of anything I haven't validly experienced and thought of, first hand. You don't know and can't know all that I've observed and heard mixing with many people, from all walks and morals. The "ideology" fits my induced facts (don't take my word for it, test it out on your experiences). For one thing, the main point about the deleterious effect which uncertainty and doubt have on individuals' lives is hardly new, but this I have known myself.

No, it's not. You are on the inside of Objectivism looking out and I am on the outside looking in. Such is what I think, not that you are dishonest. This even applies to maybe making up facts. I should have been more particular for my focus was quite narrow and the statement quite broad. I was thinking of subconscious processes. Regardless, I retract that and apologize.

We do have completely different perspectives on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

--Brant

 

[anthony]

14 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

No, it's not. You are on the inside of Objectivism looking out and I am on the outside looking in. Such is what I think, not that you are dishonest. This even applies to maybe making up facts. I should have been more particular for my focus was quite narrow and the statement quite broad. I was thinking of subconscious processes. Regardless, I retract that and apologize.

We do have completely different perspectives on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

--Brant

 

Continuing in that vein with something you touched on that absorbs me, is how impossible it is to relay to another person each instance and the totality of, one's inductive process gained throughout your life. And so to arrive at one's "open-ended" concepts. How can you specify and justify every, single "fact" you picked up (perceived) then logically checked and triple-checked for exceptions, contradictions or validity and to be tested and applied, deductively - which then form your concepts? And after which, one still has to be alert for incongruencies - or: "check your premises". By some stage, one has to establish the preponderance of truth in his inductive knowledge, to conceptualize and to act on. (Someone wrote: you don't have to taste every ocean to know the sea is salty). There's where I may come over as being very broad and non-specific, when it comes to facts (making them up, sorta)and personal values. By necessity I generalize, anticipating that others insert their own inductive experience and their own particular values.

It's striking to consider now and again, how different individuals in many corners of the world, having not quite the same experiences, and even living in different historical periods can, and do, often come to the same knowledge about existence/reality simply by way of independent perception and induction.

[Knowledge, the great value (after his life and mind) which one gathers *selfishly* with volitional effort, and I think the solid reason that "man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions"].

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

Continuing in that vein with something you touched on that absorbs me, is how impossible it is to relay to another person each instance and the totality of, one's inductive process gained throughout your life. And so to arrive at one's "open-ended" concepts. How can you specify and justify every, single "fact" you picked up (perceived) then logically checked and triple-checked for exceptions, contradictions or validity and to be tested and applied, deductively - which then form your concepts? And after which, one still has to be alert for incongruencies - or: "check your premises". By some stage, one has to establish the preponderance of truth in his inductive knowledge, to conceptualize and to act on. (Someone wrote: you don't have to taste every ocean to know the sea is salty). There's where I may come over as being very broad and non-specific, when it comes to facts (making them up, sorta)and personal values. By necessity I generalize, anticipating that others insert their own inductive experience and their own particular values.

It's striking to consider now and again, how different individuals in many corners of the world, having not quite the same experiences, and even living in different historical periods can, and do, often come to the same knowledge about existence/reality simply by way of independent perception and induction.

[Knowledge, the great value (after his life and mind) which one gathers *selfishly* with volitional effort, and I think the solid reason that "man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions"].

By perceived importance and necessity tossed against the wall of reality.

--Brant

you'll find a way

[Peter]

Good morning to the whole crew of the USS Enterprise. My full name is S'chn T'gai Spock. You may have noticed my rank which is acting captain, and my ears. I am from the planet, Vulcan. I thought the following was interesting. Being part Vulcan I do not need psychological training but if I did I would contact Dr. Hurd. He has an interesting site.

Peter

 

From DRHURD.com: “Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” –Mahatma Gandhi

 

“There is only one happiness in this life, to love and be loved.” –George Sand

 

“Happiness depends upon ourselves.” — Aristotle

 

“Most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be.” –Abraham Lincoln

 

“Happiness is making your dreams come true.” — Jourdan Dunn

 

“Happiness is a how; not a what. A talent, not an object.” — Hermann Hesse

 

“Once you are satisfied with your goal, it is the real happiness.” — Saina Nehwal

 

“When you analyze happiness, it turns out that the way you spend your time is extremely important.” — Daniel Kahneman

 

“Social scientists have found that the fastest way to feel happiness is to practice gratitude.” — Chip Conley

 

“It is great happiness to be praised of them who are most praiseworthy. ‘ — Philip Sidney

 

“The world is full of people looking for spectacular happiness while they snub contentment.” — Doug Larson

 

“The only real happiness a ballplayer has is when he is playing a ball game and accomplishes something he didn’t think he could do.” –Ring Lardner

 

“Just as a cautious businessman avoids investing all his capital in one concern, so wisdom would probably admonish us also not to anticipate all our happiness from one quarter alone.” –Sigmund Freud

 

“It’s up to you to be responsible for how you feel if you’re not happy. Your happiness lies in your hands. You can’t rely on a man to make you happy or complete you. That starts with you.” — Taraji P. Henson

 

“To be perfectly happy it does not suffice to possess happiness, it is necessary to have deserved it.” — Victor Hugo

 

“Life itself is the proper binge.” — Julia Child

 

“Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer.” — Ayn Rand

 

Michael J. Hurd To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Star Trek Voyager Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:56:50 EST: I entirely agree with you re: Voyager and Seven of Nine. I know some people who won't, on principle, watch the newer Star Trek series (having enjoyed the older one), and your comments show how they are missing out on something quite valuable. [The following Star Trek introduction is from his Living Resources website at <http://www.drhurd.com/booklist/star-trek.html> -Moderator]

 

Star Trek offers a rare glimpse into a world of heroes, where the reasoning individual mind solves problems successfully and confidently. Both the old and new series are, on the whole, inspiring as well as entertaining. Although a fantasy concept, Star Trek challenges us to project ourselves into a future where individuals consistently and heroically utilize reason, instead of reliance on emotions, whims, or superstition, to solve their dilemmas.

 

Star Trek is no sterile glorification of technology without reference to mind. The rational mind -- that is, the individual human soul or spirit -- is the essence of what drives this show and its characters. Its themes, such as individualism vs. collectivism (in the case of the evil Borg), are both relevant and timeless. Its heroes are individuals of both intellect and action. Star Trek is as much -- or more -- a work of philosophy and psychology as a work of science fiction. If the central purpose of art and entertainment is to project life as it might be and ought to be, as the philosopher Aristotle argued, then Star Trek fulfills its mission quite well.

 

Psychologically, the shows are magnificently refueling. They give you a refreshing, clean sense that the human mind is efficacious and can solve problems. You will walk away from most of the movies or episodes with a feeling that competence and thought, if diligently applied, can and will conquer adversity. You will experience the sensation, "If this is where mankind can go, then this is where I can go."

Sincerely yours,

Michael J. Hurd

Living Resources Center

http://www.drhurd.com/

[atlashead]

Ask yourself "if I loved a person, why wouldn't I live for them?" the only answer would be another person.  this means you would not live for
                                                                                                                                                    ^       ^This person.

[Brant Gaede]

Galt's oath works in the world of Atlas Shrugged.

That became the world of Objectivism 1960s style which still substantially addressed the world of the left's intellectual supremacy which has now evaporated to the extent of mainstream press advocacy of Hillary Clinton which came a cropper against Donald Trump. There's literally nothing left on the left except impotent thuggery.

There are substantial, even gigantic, problems with the philosophy as such. Take the impotency of evil theme, which proved out as I just indicated. Now there's only thugs to be beaten down and back but that can be done by other thugs, even Fascist thugs. Rand's philosophy addresses the Marxists directly and not the Nazis save by gross implication. It won't stop Trump if he embraces corporate fascism, aka crony capitalism and/or the "Deep State."

Another problem is the philosophy's "top-downerism." Push out the bad guys and put in the good guys. This is sublimated in the novel by Galt refusing power, as if the bad guys could be starved out leaving the path clear for Galt and his like--the true elite--to go back into the world. Well, the ruling elite can hang on to the end and dine well amid mass starvation.

Then there's her ideal man idea. In some ways it strikes me as a counter to the ideal Soviet Man. But notice there was no depiction of Soviet Man in the novel. It's as if she wanted an ideal man monopoly so the big but bad man didn't exist in her world.

The reason the communists (Marxists?) hate the Nazis--great Hollywood villains!--is Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1940 and, of course, the communists want that ideological monopoly--the party line--all for themselves.

I can't take Galt's oath because it obviates on its face human social existence. It only addresses the foundation of human existence of the autonomous thinking brain, as do all the four basic principles of her philosophy. This is hard core individualism and may work best for Aspies, not regular people with "normal" brains.

If evil is impotent--and in a real way it is but that's not the whole ball of evil wax--you don't write a 1000-page magnum opus to counter it. That basic contradiction works by substituting perfect (good) man for imperfect (evil) man so Dominique re-invents herself and Gail (shoots?) himself (he does in the movie); it's that the capacity for doing the wrong thing is in all of us and we all make mistakes, moral and otherwise, and grow or shrink consequently. A Randian hero does not grow morally. He corrects philosophical mistakes, not character mistakes; accepting a new morality like it was a plug in module is philosophical (I see the light!)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

I can't take Galt's oath because it obviates on its face human social existence. It only addresses the foundation of human existence of the autonomous thinking brain, as do all the four basic principles of her philosophy. This is hard core individualism and may work best for Aspies, not regular people with "normal" brains.

 

--Brant

I took Hillel   as he wrote it  (Perke Avot 1:14) (in Hebrew   אם אין אני לי, מי לי? וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני? ואם לא עכשיו, אימתי? )

If I am not for myself,  who is for me?

If I am  for myself, what am I?

If not now,  then when?

 

Essentially one balances his own personal  individual  interests and need   with  the social obligations  to which he is subject.  

Atomic  individualism (for humans)  is virtually non-existent  in the real world.   None of us would be speaking and thinking in a  language if not for those who nurtured us.  Furthermore   we are   what we do.  To be is to do. 

Rand took the principle of individualism and self interest to an absurd extremity,  or at least she tried to.   R. Hillel was more reasonable. 

The connection between Rand and Jewish thinking is NOT coincidental.  Please see:

http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/hillel.html