What is the meaning of "man's life" to you?

[l_chaim29]

I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

[Wolf DeVoon]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

Wolf,

I really like this thought expressed that way.

Michael

[l_chaim29]

Wolf,

What do you mean by your statement that individualism is a fact not a choice?

[BaalChatzaf]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

No one of us can define Man's Life in general. You can define -your- life. I can -define- my life. BTW, how does this differ from existentialism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

You don't have to "guess" what Rand means by her saying that the standard of morality is "man's life qua man." Just read "The Objectivist Ethics." On p. 17, she says "The standard [that determines what is proper for an organism to do] is the organism's life, or: that which is required for the organism's survival." She echoes this more specifically in regard to man on p. 25, where she says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being.

Just below this, she gets even more specific: "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." So, the essential features of the standard of Objectivist morality and rationality and productivity. You can't survive as a rational being without thinking and producing, so they are what you should do, and they are the measuring stick for whether you are acting properly/morally as a rational being.

REB

[Roger Bissell]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

No one of us can define Man's Life in general. You can define -your- life. I can -define- my life. BTW, how does this differ from existentialism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems bass-ackwards to me, unless you guys are using the term "define" when you really mean something different. Each individual's life is a concrete, and you don't define concretes, but abstractions, of which Man's Life is one.

I understand definition in the sense of an Aristotelian (and Randian) genus-differentia identification of something's nature -- and individual human beings are not species falling under a genus, but individual members of a species. So, if I say "man is a rational animal," I am ~defining~ man, but if I say "Ayn Rand is a rational animal," I am ~not~ defining Ayn Rand, merely ~describing~ her.

I think you really mean "specify." You can't ~specify~ (specifically identify) what Man's Life should be, but only what your individual life should be. Man's Life (as a standard) merely tells you that you need to think and produce; it generically identifies and prescribes the conditions of your survival. It doesn't tell you specifically what to do in regard to what concrete issues, like the RDA on the side panel of a cereal box. (I owe this cool metaphor to my friends Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, who have used it in several of their books and essays, including their latest, The Norms of Liberty, and an earlier work Liberty and Nature.) You apply the standard to your specific situation. You identify the specific conditions necessary for ~your~ survival, and you thus specify how you should act in order to fulfill those conditions.

I hope this helps.

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

This seems bass-ackwards to me, unless you guys are using the term "define" when you really mean something different. Each individual's life is a concrete, and you don't define concretes, but abstractions, of which Man's Life is one.

I understand definition in the sense of an Aristotelian (and Randian) genus-differentia identification of something's nature -- and individual human beings are not species falling under a genus, but individual members of a species. So, if I say "man is a rational animal," I am ~defining~ man, but if I say "Ayn Rand is a rational animal," I am ~not~ defining Ayn Rand, merely ~describing~ her.

I think you really mean "specify." You can't ~specify~ (specifically identify) what Man's Life should be, but only what your individual life should be. Man's Life (as a standard) merely tells you that you need to think and produce; it generically identifies and prescribes the conditions of your survival. It doesn't tell you specifically what to do in regard to what concrete issues, like the RDA on the side panel of a cereal box. (I owe this cool metaphor to my friends Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, who have used it in several of their books and essays, including their latest, The Norms of Liberty, and an earlier work Liberty and Nature.) You apply the standard to your specific situation. You identify the specific conditions necessary for ~your~ survival, and you thus specify how you should act in order to fulfill those conditions.

I hope this helps.

REB

The term "Man's Life" aside from what is physiologically true of all humans (our basic physical and neurological makeup -which is also physical) is meaningless.

If you want to know what "Man's Life" is, study a text in basic anatomy and phsyiology.

Learn the bones, the blood vessels, the muscles, the cellular makeup, the chemistry. Then you know what "Man's Life" is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

You don't have to "guess" what Rand means by her saying that the standard of morality is "man's life qua man." Just read "The Objectivist Ethics." On p. 17, she says "The standard [that determines what is proper for an organism to do] is the organism's life, or: that which is required for the organism's survival." She echoes this more specifically in regard to man on p. 25, where she says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being.

Just below this, she gets even more specific: "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." So, the essential features of the standard of Objectivist morality and rationality and productivity. You can't survive as a rational being without thinking and producing, so they are what you should do, and they are the measuring stick for whether you are acting properly/morally as a rational being.

REB

Does Rand ever address the issue of man surviving as a species and the goals of individuals may be at odds with community goals? So if a bunch of individuals possessing nuclear weapons threaten to blow up the earth while exercising their right to survival how does objectivist philosophy deal with that?

[bmacwilliam]

You don't have to "guess" what Rand means by her saying that the standard of morality is "man's life qua man." Just read "The Objectivist Ethics." On p. 17, she says "The standard [that determines what is proper for an organism to do] is the organism's life, or: that which is required for the organism's survival." She echoes this more specifically in regard to man on p. 25, where she says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being.

Just below this, she gets even more specific: "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." So, the essential features of the standard of Objectivist morality and rationality and productivity. You can't survive as a rational being without thinking and producing, so they are what you should do, and they are the measuring stick for whether you are acting properly/morally as a rational being.

REB

Does Rand ever address the issue of man surviving as a species and the goals of individuals may be at odds with community goals? So if a bunch of individuals possessing nuclear weapons threaten to blow up the earth while exercising their right to survival how does objectivist philosophy deal with that?

I'm guessing she'd have a big problem with the concept of 'community goals' period. I'd predict she'd argue against their existence.

Bob

[Roger Bissell]

This seems bass-ackwards to me, unless you guys are using the term "define" when you really mean something different. Each individual's life is a concrete, and you don't define concretes, but abstractions, of which Man's Life is one.

I understand definition in the sense of an Aristotelian (and Randian) genus-differentia identification of something's nature -- and individual human beings are not species falling under a genus, but individual members of a species. So, if I say "man is a rational animal," I am ~defining~ man, but if I say "Ayn Rand is a rational animal," I am ~not~ defining Ayn Rand, merely ~describing~ her.

I think you really mean "specify." You can't ~specify~ (specifically identify) what Man's Life should be, but only what your individual life should be. Man's Life (as a standard) merely tells you that you need to think and produce; it generically identifies and prescribes the conditions of your survival. It doesn't tell you specifically what to do in regard to what concrete issues, like the RDA on the side panel of a cereal box. (I owe this cool metaphor to my friends Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, who have used it in several of their books and essays, including their latest, The Norms of Liberty, and an earlier work Liberty and Nature.) You apply the standard to your specific situation. You identify the specific conditions necessary for ~your~ survival, and you thus specify how you should act in order to fulfill those conditions.

I hope this helps.

REB

The term "Man's Life" aside from what is physiologically true of all humans (our basic physical and neurological makeup -which is also physical) is meaningless.

If you want to know what "Man's Life" is, study a text in basic anatomy and phsyiology.

Learn the bones, the blood vessels, the muscles, the cellular makeup, the chemistry. Then you know what "Man's Life" is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The question I was answering was: what did Rand mean by "Man's Life" in the context of the standard of value of the Objectivist Ethics. My quote from her was intended to clarify what she meant: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being. When she says "Man's Life," she is not talking about the overall ~process~ of living, but the requirements for ~sustaining~ that process. And she fundamentally identifies those requirements in terms of certain ~actions~, namely, thinking and producing.

You are talking about Man's Life in terms of structure and function, and that is fine. But that structure and function has certain requirements for its continued, integrated existence, and ~that~ (not the structure and function itself) is what Rand was referring to when she said "Man's Life", and she clearly said so, as the quote shows. Unless we can get past this equivocation on the term "Man's Life," any further debate on the correctness of Rand's standard of value is just going to be arguing at cross purposes.

REB

[Wolf DeVoon]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

No one of us can define Man's Life in general. You can define -your- life. I can -define- my life. BTW, how does this differ from existentialism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems bass-ackwards to me, unless you guys are using the term "define" when you really mean something different. Each individual's life is a concrete, and you don't define concretes, but abstractions, of which Man's Life is one...

Man's Life (as a standard) merely tells you that you need to think and produce; it generically identifies and prescribes the conditions of your survival. It doesn't tell you specifically what to do in regard to what concrete issues... You apply the standard to your specific situation. You identify the specific conditions necessary for your survival, and you thus specify how you should act in order to fulfill those conditions...

REB

My five-year-old is incapable of applying anything except her kid caution, kid integration, etc. At age 57, her father faces moral and existential dilemmas pertaining to an Objectivist with a two-ton chip on his shoulder. Meanwhile, the Six Billion are infinitely diverse - geographically, physically, intellectually, culturally, and philosophically. Let's consider that Ba'al and and REB and I are differently situated with contrary ideas of right and wrong. It would be an easy matter to demonstrate.

No one can introspectively peg his life to an abstract standard of Man's Life. It's nice to meet others in life or in literature for comparison, perhaps illuminating an issue that previously one never knew existed. And that is the observation rightly made by some Existentialists. You have to face your life with or without Miss Rand, for instance.

I wore the Sign of the Dollar for a period of years. It's good to be retired.

P.S. - check out this resource http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/iraq/index.htm to see how differently situated some people are, compared to our genteel discussions of MQM and the meaning of art, romance, parenting, etc.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Roger Bissell]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

No one of us can define Man's Life in general. You can define -your- life. I can -define- my life. BTW, how does this differ from existentialism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

This seems bass-ackwards to me, unless you guys are using the term "define" when you really mean something different. Each individual's life is a concrete, and you don't define concretes, but abstractions, of which Man's Life is one...

Man's Life (as a standard) merely tells you that you need to think and produce; it generically identifies and prescribes the conditions of your survival. It doesn't tell you specifically what to do in regard to what concrete issues... You apply the standard to your specific situation. You identify the specific conditions necessary for your survival, and you thus specify how you should act in order to fulfill those conditions...

REB

My five-year-old is incapable of applying anything except her kid caution, kid integration, etc. At age 57, her father faces moral and existential dilemmas pertaining to an Objectivist with a two-ton chip on his shoulder. Meanwhile, the Six Billion are infinitely diverse - geographically, physically, intellectually, culturally, and philosophically. Let's consider that Ba'al and and REB and I are differently situated with contrary ideas of right and wrong. It would be an easy matter to demonstrate.

Being in different ~situations~ or circumstances does not exempt one from the requirements of a rational being's life, namely, thinking and producing -- any more than being in different situations or circumstances exempts any animal (including a human being) from the requirements of an animal's life, such as drinking water and eating and breathing.

I don't care what human society you care to posit, including the Amazonian natives, the Iraqis, or the Eskimos; they ~all~ must think and produce. And for those who won't -- or, such as your 5 year old daughter, can't (yet) -- adopt and live by a rational philosophy, their survival depends upon the rational thought and productivity of those who ~do~.

And that is ~all~ that the Objectivist Ethics tells us, in essence. It does ~not~ offer us a detailed guide to what to do in all the possible situations we may get into -- just that we must handle them as rational (thinking/productive) individuals. Applying the general (abstract) guidelines to the specific (concrete) situations is part of the task of ~practical living as a rational being~. Who ever said that Objectivism's ethics could or should micro-dictate the details of our lives -- or that there is something wrong with it, if it doesn't???

No one can introspectively peg his life to an abstract standard of Man's Life.

Sure you can! For instance, the abstract standard of Man's Life ~means~ that a man must think and produce in order to live the life proper to a rational being. But "think" and "produce" are ~also~ abstract. They don't tell you ~what~ to think or produce, just ~that~ you must think and produce in order to live. What is the problem with "pegging your life" to that? It's hardly more than basic common sense.

It's nice to meet others in life or in literature for comparison, perhaps illuminating an issue that previously one never knew existed. And that is the observation rightly made by some Existentialists. You have to face your life with or without Miss Rand, for instance.

I wore the Sign of the Dollar for a period of years. It's good to be retired.

What self-respecting Objectivist cares whether he "faces his life with or without Miss Rand"? Or whether he protects Objectivism? Isn't the essential issue whether you face your life with or without a commitment to thinking and productivity? To seeking and living in accordance with the truth?

Having worn the Sign of the Dollar proves nothing -- nor does being glad you no longer do. They are vague, general statements that could mean a variety of things. But if you're glad to be no longer associated with Objectivism, why are you still here??

REB

[Wolf DeVoon]

A question. Do you currently wear the Sign of the Dollar? A gold tie-clip or pendant or ring in the shape of a dollar sign? Nothing vague about this. It was a very specific statement about retirement. You know the bromide about 'having greatness thrust upon' some of us? I had retirement thrust upon me.

I'm here because I like to talk. Maybe that's an insufficient reason.

man must think and produce in order to live the life proper to a rational being. But "think" and "produce" are ~also~ abstract. They don't tell you ~what~ to think or produce, just ~that~ you must think and produce in order to live. What is the problem with "pegging your life" to that? It's hardly more than basic common sense

Oh. Objectivism is basic common sense.

Sorry to be snippy about it, but Roark's refusal to compromise on the Manhattan Bank Company facade wasn't bread and butter common sense. Taking Dominique was positively heroic. Blowing up Cortlandt was more or less nuts, unless there's something else beside survival at stake in 'man qua man.'

Roarks, Galts, and real life heroes like James Otis are rare. The world is full of Trumps, Madonnas, Waltons, and ringtone programmers. Thinking and producing to get wealth is as popular as whoring. And since when does anyone in government or religion do any thinking or producing? The goal of military action is to kill people and break things. I doubt you read my linked resource on conditions in Iraq.

Isn't the essential issue whether you face your life with or without a commitment to thinking and productivity? To seeking and living in accordance with the truth?

A billion Catholics. A billion and a half Moslems. A billion Hindus living in squallor, and another billion so primitive that the only truth they know is a tradition of slavery, starvation, murder, and mutilation. Miss Rand rightly counseled: "It's earlier than we think."

Let's be candid about Objectivism. You're on your way into hell, Howard.

W.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[l_chaim29]

Roger,

Would you please respond to my post about "Possible Problem with Objectivist ethics"; I would be courious to see what someone like you would say in response to my percieved problem with it viewed from the standpoint that Rand's ethics is about survival (without sacrifices of self to others or othes to self, of course). Thanks.

Edited June 28, 2007 by l_chaim29

[l_chaim29]

I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

You don't have to "guess" what Rand means by her saying that the standard of morality is "man's life qua man." Just read "The Objectivist Ethics." On p. 17, she says "The standard [that determines what is proper for an organism to do] is the organism's life, or: that which is required for the organism's survival." She echoes this more specifically in regard to man on p. 25, where she says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being.

Just below this, she gets even more specific: "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." So, the essential features of the standard of Objectivist morality and rationality and productivity. You can't survive as a rational being without thinking and producing, so they are what you should do, and they are the measuring stick for whether you are acting properly/morally as a rational being.

REB

Roger,

Could you let me know a little bit more about what she means by "qua man"?

[BaalChatzaf]

The correct answer in all cases is: your life. You are the individual who has to define 'man's life' in the context of your particular moral dilemmas. Each of us gets a slightly different time, place, adventure, crisis, and imminent consequences. Individualism is a fact, not a choice.

W.

If so, then it is a category error to use a general term -- man's life-- to denote a specific thing, -- your life --. There are over six billion humans on this planet. It is unlikely they all agree to what there life is or is about and there are radically different views on the matter, highly dependent on culture. Since sane people can disagree on the matter, it follows there is no general definition of "man's life" except in biological or physiological terms. We all have the same genome to within one percent of the DNA and our biological functions are very similar, so a meaningful general characterization can be formulated.

Furthermore physical survival precedes flourishing, regardless of one's definition of flourishing. One cannot flourish if he/she is dead.

[Roger Bissell]

I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

You don't have to "guess" what Rand means by her saying that the standard of morality is "man's life qua man." Just read "The Objectivist Ethics." On p. 17, she says "The standard [that determines what is proper for an organism to do] is the organism's life, or: that which is required for the organism's survival." She echoes this more specifically in regard to man on p. 25, where she says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics...is ~man's~ life, or: that which is required for man's survival ~qua~ man." I.e., as man, as a rational being.

Just below this, she gets even more specific: "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." So, the essential features of the standard of Objectivist morality and rationality and productivity. You can't survive as a rational being without thinking and producing, so they are what you should do, and they are the measuring stick for whether you are acting properly/morally as a rational being.

REB

Roger,

Could you let me know a little bit more about what she means by "qua man"?

OK, here's a "little bit more": by "man qua man," Rand means man not as a living being in general, or an animal in general, but as a rational being. What is good for man qua man means what is good for man as a rational being. And since the good for any living creature is that which is necessary for its survival as the kind of being it is, the good for man boils down to thinking and producing. If you don't do it, some other rational being has to, and you have to depend upon their thinking and producing for your survival.

REB

[bmacwilliam]

OK, here's a "little bit more": by "man qua man," Rand means man not as a living being in general, or an animal in general, but as a rational being. What is good for man qua man means what is good for man as a rational being. And since the good for any living creature is that which is necessary for its survival as the kind of being it is, the good for man boils down to thinking and producing. If you don't do it, some other rational being has to, and you have to depend upon their thinking and producing for your survival.

REB

It sounds logical 'n all, but to me it really isn't. What it boils down to for me is that the 'man qua man' really means 'man according to Objectivist principles'. So even though I happen to agree that rationality and logic and so on indeed have much merit, Rand's lines of reasoning when based upon or related to her 'man qua man' stuff is ultimately circular and have no value as arguments.

So to be clear, I think the ideas have merit, but the argument backing them up has none.

Bob

[cjsmall]

What Roger said in post #18 is clear and makes sense. Bob's response in post #19 is just unsupported assertion and hand waving. Bob, you present no argument for your conclusions. If you are going to posit that when Rand referred to "man qua man" she meant something other than what Roger presented, and that she was making circular arguments, could you please back it up with some references to her usage in her writings and some analysis. Thanks.

--

Jeff

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I understand this phrase as Roger and Jeffery do. Rand was against a mind-body dichotomy, so thinking (mind) and producing (body) more or less covers it, but with one addition. For psychological health, she also threw in pride and self-esteem. She made a distinction between standard and purpose in ethics for this.

Standard = man's nature (man qua man)

Purpose = the individual's own life

Here are her words from "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 27, where, incidentally, the phrase "man qua man" was used.:

The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.

The difference between "standard" and "purpose" in this context is as follows: a "standard" is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. "That which is required for the survival of man qua man" is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own.

Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.

Notice that purpose is a value. Standard is not. It is merely an identification used for measuring.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

What Roger said in post #18 is clear and makes sense. Bob's response in post #19 is just unsupported assertion and hand waving. Bob, you present no argument for your conclusions. If you are going to posit that when Rand referred to "man qua man" she meant something other than what Roger presented, and that she was making circular arguments, could you please back it up with some references to her usage in her writings and some analysis. Thanks.

--

Jeff

Well, I'm sure others here might do, or certainly have done, a better job at this but, Rand's ideas on human nature are rather trivial to criticize. This can be done from many angles, let me start here...

Rationality - Rand's defining characteristic of man. Sure, we're different than other animals on this, but why is this our defining characteristic? Because Rand said so, and for no other valid reason. Right away she commits a fallacy. Is it called the fallacy of distinction, or fallacy of difference or something like that? Anyway, as I understand it, the problem arises when a distinction between two things is assumed to be the essential or 'defining' difference. Rationality is an important human trait. Precisely because it's intuitively important the fallacy can slip by undetected.

Let's say you're a white man, and your neighbour is a black man. Is the 'defining' difference between you two the colour of your skin? No, of course not. You'd share much more similarity (physical, emotional, intellectual) with some other black man somewhere, than some other white man who was very different from you in all of these ways. Why then is rationality our 'defining' characteristic, less important that all of our other 'animalistic' ones? Regardless, of whether you FEEL that it is the 'big' thing, if you examine why you feel this way, I'll venture you'll commit the same fallacy.

Now, what about all the other stuff like productive work and yada yada yada and all of Rand's proclaimed virtues? They are just that - proclaimed. They are not objectively based. There are tons of holes in the whole idea of "no conflicts possible between rational interests/parties" ideas as well. This idea also does not hold up to minimal scrutiny either. But let's just start with the foundation fallacy and go from there.

So, what we have left is "man qua man" simply meaning "man as Rand would like him to be (a good Objectivist)", and so any man qua man argument is trivially circular.

Bob

Edited July 11, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

What Roger said in post #18 is clear and makes sense. Bob's response in post #19 is just unsupported assertion and hand waving. Bob, you present no argument for your conclusions. If you are going to posit that when Rand referred to "man qua man" she meant something other than what Roger presented, and that she was making circular arguments, could you please back it up with some references to her usage in her writings and some analysis. Thanks.

--

Jeff

Well, I'm sure others here might do, or certainly have done, a better job at this but, Rand's ideas on human nature are rather trivial to criticize. This can be done from many angles, let me start here...

Rationality - Rand's defining characteristic of man. Sure, we're different than other animals on this, but why is this our defining characteristic? Because Rand said so, and for no other valid reason. Right away she commits a fallacy. Is it called the fallacy of distinction, or fallacy of difference or something like that? Anyway, as I understand it, the problem arises when a distinction between two things is assumed to be the essential or 'defining' difference. Rationality is an important human trait. Precisely because it's intuitively important the fallacy can slip by undetected.

Let's say you're a white man, and your neighbour is a black man. Is the 'defining' difference between you two the colour of your skin? No, of course not. You'd share much more similarity (physical, emotional, intellectual) with some other black man somewhere, than some other white man who was very different from you in all of these ways. Why then is rationality our 'defining' characteristic, less important that all of our other 'animalistic' ones? Regardless, of whether you FEEL that it is the 'big' thing, if you examine why you feel this way, I'll venture you'll commit the same fallacy.

Now, what about all the other stuff like productive work and yada yada yada and all of Rand's proclaimed virtues? They are just that - proclaimed. They are not objectively based. There are tons of holes in the whole idea of "no conflicts possible between rational interests/parties" ideas as well. This idea also does not hold up to minimal scrutiny either. But let's just start with the foundation fallacy and go from there.

So, what we have left is "man qua man" simply meaning "man as Rand would like him to be (a good Objectivist)", and so any man qua man argument is trivially circular.

Bob

Well, we are all waiting for YOUR "objectively based," whatever that is. Anthropologically we might say that man's distinguishing characteristic is upright posture and foot, but she didn't know anthropology. However, you didn't put her definition against her explanation of what constitutes a definition and unless you do you can't claim she committed a fallacy here. If her definition fits on that basis then you have to go after her on that level if you still object.

I think Objectivists use that rationality thing to dehumanize others whom they consider irrational (outside the definition) and thus "social ballast" (at best), etc.

Rationality and productive work go hand in hand for the former makes the latter go.

The purpose in deconstructing Rand is to make way for something better, existentially and personally. Good luck to you with that.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I suggest you read ITOE. Your comments show that do not understand what Rand means by a "defining characteristic."

Briefly, in her form of definition, it is the differentia, the other part being genus. A genus is basically a general categorization (like "animal") and a "defining characteristic" is a feature belonging to a group of individuals within that category that the other individual members do not have. Categories are identified by what Rand calls conceptual common denominators, which are shared characteristics that are measurable.

This is vastly different than what you mean. In the category "animal," man is the only animal who has a conceptual faculty (i.e., is rational). This is what she means by "rational" being the defining characteristic of man.

To address your example, animals come in all types of colors (including black and white). That is why it is not a defining characteristic (differentia) of man, although color is a conceptual common denominator of race among the human species. Only one type of animal comes with rationality: human beings.

If you disagree with Rand's form of definition, that's one thing. But disagreeing with a mischaracterization of her thinking is not serious criticism. Rand cannot be faulted for being incorrectly interpreted according to your meaning.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I suggest you read ITOE. Your comments show that do not understand what Rand means by a "defining characteristic."

A defining characteristic for a set of things is a property (predicate) that applies to all members of the set and which logically implies or is logically equivalent to any other predicate that is possessed by all members of the set.

The notion has its origins in Aristotle's concept of "natural kinds", which is correct as far as it goes and which has been radically expanded since Darwin.

When it comes to logic, I have nothing whatsoever to learn from Rand who was an ignoramus with regard to

a. science, b. mathematics, c. logic.

The development of logic since the time of Boole and Frege far surpasses anything done by Aristotle or his academic successors.

I earned my bread for over forty five years doing applied mathematics and applied logic (software design). I bow my head to none other than the leading workers in the field of which Rand and her "intellectual heir" Pope Leonard are not members. Tedd Codd (inventor of relational databases) I salute. Rand, I do not salute.

Rand and I are on the same page with regard to Capitalism. There we agree. Capitalism has promoted liberty and prosperity. Its antagonists have not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 11, 2007 by BaalChatzaf