The Rise of the Global South

[Selene]

And presuming that I stipulate that that is true, the connection to Rand is ?????????.

Rand is in Aristotle's camp. She conveniently ignored Aristotle's statist position in order to embrace other of his doctrines. In particular Rand is an Eudaimonian from start to finish. She is pro-flourishing and she presents this in the guise (but not the words) of a duty. Read page 100 of the hard cover edition of AS. That is why her notion of ethics (and morality) is not predicated on how party A relates to party B.

"No matter how good you are I will expect you to wring everything you've got trying still to be better". That is what Francisco said to Dagny. Of course that is Rand talking (or writing). Eudaimonian clean through and down to the molecular level. It is one thing to use this measure as a personal standard, it is quite another to lay this trip on another human being. WTF does Francisco think he is? That requires more chutzpah than even I have and that is going some.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Rand is in Aristotle's camp."

This statement is patently absurd. It is also false. The fact is that Rand in her own words at the back of the 35th Anniversary paperback, in a statement entitled "About the Author" states in paragraph five (5) "The only philisophical debt that I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy - but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison."

Mmmmm, I think she is more in one teeny, tiny one of his campsites. STRAW MAN, Ba'al.

[tjohnson]

"No matter how good you are I will expect you to wring everything you've got trying still to be better". That is what Francisco said to Dagny. Of course that is Rand talking (or writing). Eudaimonian clean through and down to the molecular level. It is one thing to use this measure as a personal standard, it is quite another to lay this trip on another human being. WTF does Francisco think he is? That requires more chutzpah than even I have and that is going some.

It's like Seinfeld said he felt sorry for those guys at the Tide laboratory. The detergent gets the clothes incredibly white but it's just not white enough!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand:

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island - it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today - and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

This passage is bewildering to me - I cannot even begin to imagine what she is talking about.

GS,

With Rand, you should always seek out where she defined her terms. Then this becomes clear. From "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13:

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

In Objectivism, man's rational faculty is his means of survival. It has to be engaged by choice (or better, it can be rejected by choice, as in the acceptance of faith as superior to it). Choice and rational are the key words. Thus, for example, choosing any standard for dealing with the bare necessities of survival other than reason as the good is considered immoral.

As an extreme example, if you are being attacked by a tiger, you can (1) run, or (2) stand there and pray to God to save you. Religion teaches that with enough faith, God will save you. Rand considered it evil to hold this, instead of reason, as the good. Objectivism teaches that the tiger will eat you if you stand there praying.

Michael

EDIT: Here is where Rand defines it in Galt's speech (Atlas Shrugged, p. 932):

A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

[Selene]

"No matter how good you are I will expect you to wring everything you've got trying still to be better". That is what Francisco said to Dagny. Of course that is Rand talking (or writing). Eudaimonian clean through and down to the molecular level. It is one thing to use this measure as a personal standard, it is quite another to lay this trip on another human being. WTF does Francisco think he is? That requires more chutzpah than even I have and that is going some.

It's like Seinfeld said he felt sorry for those guys at the Tide laboratory. The detergent gets the clothes incredibly white but it's just not white enough!

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing.

Ba'al chatzaf

[merjet]

As an extreme example, if you are being attacked by a tiger, you can (1) run, or (2) stand there and pray to God to save you.

You omitted an alternative.

If he comes to slay you, kill him first, tear his head off and shit down his neck (The Wit, the Warmth and the Wisdom of Ba'al Chatzaf).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

LOLOLOLOL...

However, I thought Bob only reserved that kind of response for human beings. He seems to like animals.

Besides, tearing off a head and shitting down a neck is Bob's metaethical response to survival. He doesn't think ethics applies outside of society. So it is not ethical to do that to save yourself from tigers. It is only moral to do that when you kill other people.

Michael

[Selene]

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing.

Ba'al chatzaf

Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial.

Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two?

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing.

Ba'al chatzaf

Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial.

Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two?

According to Aristotle's -Nichomachian Ethics- the ultimate end of all human effort is happiness (Eudaimonia). This end is sought for its own sake for there is not other thing that it leads to. Happiness is beauty and excellence (kalon and arette) in human functioning. This means the human is living a life of reason in harmony with all other aspects of his soul. Happiness, for a human, is excellence, beauty and harmony in functioning as a human. This is Aristotle's Man qua Man.

In the course of the work he covers all the virtues (arete) which is to say excellence: Practical Wisdom (Prudence), Justice, Temperance, Fortitude (Courage). He factors in the role that friendship plays in achieving the virtues. Above all, Aristotle, teaches, virtues are acquired in the -doing- of virtue, not in the contemplation of what they are. One -does- virtue. Virtue is acquired by good habits started early in life.

If you want the complete working out by Aristotle, read what he wrote, or else be satisfied with the Cliff Notes. There are ten books to his work and the English translation runs about 200 pages.

Aristotle says that the virtue of justice leads to excellent (arete) and beautiful (kalon) doing with respect to others, but is not defined in terms of how one behaves with respect to others. In other words, good behavior is a consequence of being just, not the definition of being just.

The work is interesting in many ways. You get to see how Aristotle reasons his way to the conclusion that Eudaimonia is the end (for its own sake) of the doing of virtue. He uses several of the syllogistic forms that he outlines in the Prior and Posterior Analytics. For Aristotle, logic is a tool with a sharp point and cutting edge, not merely an abstract study. That is why he calls his books on logic organon, which means tool-kit. Logic is a term (derived from logos) used much later on to describe what he does in the organon.

It is interesting how Aristotle works out that the proper science of achieving virtuous doing and the end (Eudaimonia) is the science of politics. In the end, Aristotle describes how the happy human is one who (by some odd coincidence) is doing excellent and beautiful philosophy.

Equally interesting is the way Aristotle works out virtues to be a mean between bounding vices. This is where the Aristotelean concept of the golden mean arises.

This book -The Nichomachean Ehtics- (called by Aristotle Ta Ethica) is probably one intended for a wide audience. Most of Aristotle's surviving work are his study or class books, which are really outlines of his lectures. They tend to be a bit dry and stilted and very unlike Plato's writing which is quite witty (even in translation).

If you really want to get a feeling for what Aristotle is saying, try to read translations done by Joe Sachs whose mission is to clear up translations which are overburdened with Latinisms and tend to obscure what Aristotle is saying and manner in which he says it. I am using Sachs translation of Ta Ethica. The difference between this tranlsation and that given by the New Oxford Translation is rather interesting. If you don't know Attic Greek then you should be using several translations concurrently to remove any translators bias and get to what Aristotle (most likely) was saying. I am trying to learn Attic but it will take me a few years before I can read the Byzantine Greek texts of Aristotle (which are considered by scholars the most authentic).

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Edited November 1, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Mike Hardy]

Ellen, on a desert island there are NO ethical questions. Only survival. Who can one wrong on a desert island? Only one's self and that is more like making an arithmetical error than commiting a sin. If I hit my thumb with a hammer that is not an ethical defect, it is just bad aim. Anything one does to himself that harms no one else is not an ethical breach. It may be a silly act, it may be a self harmful act, it may even be fatal but it is never a morally or ethically wrong act. One has a right to do anything to himself that does not harm another. One of the benefits of self-ownership.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think you've got this wrong. Once upon a time the Dean of a College issued a statement on academic honesty. He began by saying every student is presumed to have arrived with a serious learning purpose. I think he got the matter just right. Outside the context of the _purpose_ in life, there's no reason to follow moral rules. A code of right and wrong action has to be a mission statement. That is equally true on a desert island or in society, but in society right or wrong action manifests itself in ways in which it does not on a desert island.

Is there any reason for not harming others that makes sense outside the context of purposefulness in life? -- Mike Hardy

[Selene]

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing.

Ba'al chatzaf

Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial.

Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two?

According to Aristotle's -Nichomachian Ethics- the ultimate end of all human effort is happiness (Eudaimonia). This end is sought for its own sake for there is not other thing that it leads to. Happiness is beauty and excellence (kalon and arette) in human functioning. This means the human is living a life of reason in harmony with all other aspects of his soul. Happiness, for a human, is excellence, beauty and harmony in functioning as a human. This is Aristotle's Man qua Man.

In the course of the work he covers all the virtues (arete) which is to say excellence: Practical Wisdom (Prudence), Justice, Temperance, Fortitude (Courage). He factors in the role that friendship plays in achieving the virtues. Above all, Aristotle, teaches, virtues are acquired in the -doing- of virtue, not in the contemplation of what they are. One -does- virtue. Virtue is acquired by good habits started early in life.

If you want the complete working out by Aristotle, read what he wrote, or else be satisfied with the Cliff Notes. There are ten books to his work and the English translation runs about 200 pages.

Aristotle says that the virtue of justice leads to excellent (arete) and beautiful (kalon) doing with respect to others, but is not defined in terms of how one behaves with respect to others. In other words, good behavior is a consequence of being just, not the definition of being just.

The work is interesting in many ways. You get to see how Aristotle reasons his way to the conclusion that Eudaimonia is the end (for its own sake) of the doing of virtue. He uses several of the syllogistic forms that he outlines in the Prior and Posterior Analytics. For Aristotle, logic is a tool with a sharp point and cutting edge, not merely an abstract study. That is why he calls his books on logic organon, which means tool-kit. Logic is a term (derived from logos) used much later on to describe what he does in the organon.

It is interesting how Aristotle works out that the proper science of achieving virtuous doing and the end (Eudaimonia) is the science of politics. In the end, Aristotle describes how the happy human is one who (by some odd coincidence) is doing excellent and beautiful philosophy.

Equally interesting is the way Aristotle works out virtues to be a mean between bounding vices. This is where the Aristotelean concept of the golden mean arises.

This book -The Nichomachean Ehtics- (called by Aristotle Ta Ethica) is probably one intended for a wide audience. Most of Aristotle's surviving work are his study or class books, which are really outlines of his lectures. They tend to be a bit dry and stilted and very unlike Plato's writing which is quite witty (even in translation).

If you really want to get a feeling for what Aristotle is saying, try to read translations done by Joe Sachs whose mission is to clear up translations which are overburdened with Latinisms and tend to obscure what Aristotle is saying and manner in which he says it. I am using Sachs translation of Ta Ethica. The difference between this tranlsation and that given by the New Oxford Translation is rather interesting. If you don't know Attic Greek then you should be using several translations concurrently to remove any translators bias and get to what Aristotle (most likely) was saying. I am trying to learn Attic but it will take me a few years before I can read the Byzantine Greek texts of Aristotle (which are considered by scholars the most authentic).

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Sir, I taught Aristotelian Rhetoric, which is his most popular book historically. In teaching his Rhetoric you read his other works. I am not an Aristotelian, but a follower of the teachings of Ayn Rand that I know to be true[which means Ba'al not all of them]. I wrote my thesis on Aristotelian analysis of the Objectivist Movement.

My point to you was your misrepresentation of quotes from a novel which you chose to subject with an analysis that I think is faulty. I have to get back to work, that's all for now.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al how do you define Eudaimonia? This is a serious question, not sealed with satire. I would like to know.

It means literally a good spirit (in Greek). Its practical meaning is a spirit of flourishing.

Ba'al chatzaf

Ba'al, I asked for a serious answer, not the philosophical Cliff's Note version. My understanding of Eudaimonia is as Aristotle viewed it the heirarchy of human purposes with the apex being eudaimonia, an end that everyone aims at. This goal is arrived at by the individual using rational activity pursuing virtue. Judgement is a key element in achieving that end. Finally, it is non-sacrificial.

Therefore, Rand would tangentially agree with a) self actualization[Maslow] and selfishness. Seems that eudaimonia is quite good and quite Randian and that's forced mate in two?

According to Aristotle's -Nichomachian Ethics- the ultimate end of all human effort is happiness (Eudaimonia). This end is sought for its own sake for there is not other thing that it leads to. Happiness is beauty and excellence (kalon and arette) in human functioning. This means the human is living a life of reason in harmony with all other aspects of his soul. Happiness, for a human, is excellence, beauty and harmony in functioning as a human. This is Aristotle's Man qua Man.

In the course of the work he covers all the virtues (arete) which is to say excellence: Practical Wisdom (Prudence), Justice, Temperance, Fortitude (Courage). He factors in the role that friendship plays in achieving the virtues. Above all, Aristotle, teaches, virtues are acquired in the -doing- of virtue, not in the contemplation of what they are. One -does- virtue. Virtue is acquired by good habits started early in life.

If you want the complete working out by Aristotle, read what he wrote, or else be satisfied with the Cliff Notes. There are ten books to his work and the English translation runs about 200 pages.

Aristotle says that the virtue of justice leads to excellent (arete) and beautiful (kalon) doing with respect to others, but is not defined in terms of how one behaves with respect to others. In other words, good behavior is a consequence of being just, not the definition of being just.

The work is interesting in many ways. You get to see how Aristotle reasons his way to the conclusion that Eudaimonia is the end (for its own sake) of the doing of virtue. He uses several of the syllogistic forms that he outlines in the Prior and Posterior Analytics. For Aristotle, logic is a tool with a sharp point and cutting edge, not merely an abstract study. That is why he calls his books on logic organon, which means tool-kit. Logic is a term (derived from logos) used much later on to describe what he does in the organon.

It is interesting how Aristotle works out that the proper science of achieving virtuous doing and the end (Eudaimonia) is the science of politics. In the end, Aristotle describes how the happy human is one who (by some odd coincidence) is doing excellent and beautiful philosophy.

Equally interesting is the way Aristotle works out virtues to be a mean between bounding vices. This is where the Aristotelean concept of the golden mean arises.

This book -The Nichomachean Ehtics- (called by Aristotle Ta Ethica) is probably one intended for a wide audience. Most of Aristotle's surviving work are his study or class books, which are really outlines of his lectures. They tend to be a bit dry and stilted and very unlike Plato's writing which is quite witty (even in translation).

If you really want to get a feeling for what Aristotle is saying, try to read translations done by Joe Sachs whose mission is to clear up translations which are overburdened with Latinisms and tend to obscure what Aristotle is saying and manner in which he says it. I am using Sachs translation of Ta Ethica. The difference between this tranlsation and that given by the New Oxford Translation is rather interesting. If you don't know Attic Greek then you should be using several translations concurrently to remove any translators bias and get to what Aristotle (most likely) was saying. I am trying to learn Attic but it will take me a few years before I can read the Byzantine Greek texts of Aristotle (which are considered by scholars the most authentic).

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Sir, I taught Aristotelian Rhetoric, which is his most popular book historically. In teaching his Rhetoric you read his other works. I am not an Aristotelian, but a follower of the teachings of Ayn Rand that I know to be true[which means Ba'al not all of them]. I wrote my thesis on Aristotelian analysis of the Objectivist Movement.

My point to you was your misrepresentation of quotes from a novel which you chose to subject with an analysis that I think is faulty. I have to get back to work, that's all for now.

[BaalChatzaf]

My point to you was your misrepresentation of quotes from a novel which you chose to subject with an analysis that I think is faulty. I have to get back to work, that's all for now.

I try not to -interpret-. I take statements at their plain and primary meaning. I am deliberately literal minded. I have taken the advice of a certain Russian born novelist to take what people say literally and at face value. Reading between the lines is an act of charity I am not inclined to do.

Rand's ethical approach is very congruent to that of Aristotle. I do not accept her (nor Aristotle's) notion of ethics, although I am trying to learn what they are. Aristotle, clever fellow that he was, lived in a world very different from ours. Some things he got right and some he got wrong. His teachings on the workings of Nature are either mostly wrong, or not even wrong. His physics, as the science of motion and change in the natural world is worthless, as we now know today. Furthermore his reluctance to empirically check his conclusions I simply do not comprehend. I have asked the professor teaching the course I am taking on Aristotle for his opinion on what that is, but I have not yet received an answer.

As to Rand herself, and her acolyte, Pope Leonard, I have learned to take not a single syllable of what they say concerning science, math or natural philosophy seriously. They are ignoramuses. Particularly Pope Leonard, who not only is ignorant, but is militantly ignorant.

Rand's ethical premises are neither axiomatic nor self evident. One can agree with them or not agree with them and not reach a logical contradiction. In short, Rand's ethical premises are not necessarily true. I see ethics in a social context. It has to do with how we deal with other humans. Ethics is opinion and convention. There are very few ethical -facts- in nature. Actually there are none. The only connection between Ethics and nature, is any ethical system to be practiced must be physically possible and consistent with survival. After these constraints, it is all opinion and convention. So ethics is not like physical science. Science is hard constrained by facts. Ethics is not. That is why there are so many kinds of societies in the world presently and historically in which humans have lived AND survived. It is also why there are so few working scientific theories. One is run on opinions, the other on facts.

Rand appeared to think that Capitalism is ordained by Nature. It isn't. It happens to be an economic modality which has thus far produced the greatest degree of material prosperity for humans. It is the system I favor partly because I am used to it, and partly because I would rather live in prosperity than squalor. For those who think privation and misery is good for building character, they will probably reject Capitalism. I won't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Reading between the lines is an act of charity I am not inclined to do.

Bob,

Reading between the lines and getting an idea completely wrong are two different things. Often you get the ideas wrong. See the following for an excellent example:

Rand appeared to think that Capitalism is ordained by Nature.

I won't even bother taking this literally, which you claim to be high virtue (i,e,, Nature cannot ordain anything since it is not a person). Your mistake here is one that I see you repeatedly make. You remove volition from Rand's ethics. Since politics (including capitalism) rests on ethics in Objectivism, it is chosen. You always leave out the chosen part, then impute to Rand's words meanings that are not there.

That is just one type of mistake.

EDIT: Ignoring conceptual hierarchy is another. Getting the context wrong (or blanking it out) is another. Using definitions from other people as if they were Rand's meaning is another. There are several types of errors.

Like I said, I do not mind disagreement. But I am a stickler for getting the ideas correct before disagreement. As an example, there are several OL posters who believe in God. They disagree with Rand on this point and that is fine. Notice that I do not complain. If one of them would start saying that Rand actually was a Deist, and then bash her for it, I would object strongly. There is a small qualification to this. I also object when a person starts preaching. This has not happened with the existence of God, but it has happened with other issues. Hell, I don't even like preaching Objectivism. This is a place to discuss it instead. I take "discussion" very seriously in the term "discussion forum."

Michael

[tjohnson]

With Rand, you should always seek out where she defined her terms. Then this becomes clear. From "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13:

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

In Objectivism, man's rational faculty is his means of survival. It has to be engaged by choice (or better, it can be rejected by choice, as in the acceptance of faith as superior to it). Choice and rational are the key words. Thus, for example, choosing any standard for dealing with the bare necessities of survival other than reason as the good is considered immoral.

Well, I personally think of "morality" as belonging in religion, associated with "right" and "wrong". I don't think Objectivism will ever succeed in this area because preaching morality of any kind has proven to be a gigantic waste of time historically. Korzybski speaks about 'sanity', not 'morality', which I think stands a much better chance in the long run. If we can define 'sanity' in a generally accepted way then when people don't behave this way they must be considered unsane or possibly insane, not 'right' or 'wrong'. It appears both Korzybski and Rand were very interested in getting mankind to use his "faculty of reason" (which is mainly why I joined this list) but Korzybski relates it to sanity instead of morality. He also doesn't call it a "faculty of reason", but that is another story.

[Selene]

Reading between the lines is an act of charity I am not inclined to do.

Bob,

Reading between the lines and getting an idea completely wrong are two different things. Often you get the ideas wrong. See the following for an excellent example:

Rand appeared to think that Capitalism is ordained by Nature.

I won't even bother taking this literally, which you claim to be high virtue (i,e,, Nature cannot ordain anything since it is not a person). Your mistake here is one that I see you repeatedly make. You remove volition from Rand's ethics. Since politics (including capitalism) rests on ethics in Objectivism, it is chosen. You always leave out the chosen part, then impute to Rand's words meanings that are not there.

That is just one type of mistake.

Michael

Precisely.

[Selene]

With Rand, you should always seek out where she defined her terms. Then this becomes clear. From "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 13:

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

In Objectivism, man's rational faculty is his means of survival. It has to be engaged by choice (or better, it can be rejected by choice, as in the acceptance of faith as superior to it). Choice and rational are the key words. Thus, for example, choosing any standard for dealing with the bare necessities of survival other than reason as the good is considered immoral.

Well, I personally think of "morality" as belonging in religion, associated with "right" and "wrong". I don't think Objectivism will ever succeed in this area because preaching morality of any kind has proven to be a gigantic waste of time historically. Korzybski speaks about 'sanity', not 'morality', which I think stands a much better chance in the long run. If we can define 'sanity' in a generally accepted way then when people don't behave this way they must be considered unsane or possibly insane, not 'right' or 'wrong'. It appears both Korzybski and Rand were very interested in getting mankind to use his "faculty of reason" (which is mainly why I joined this list) but Korzybski relates it to sanity instead of morality. He also doesn't call it a "faculty of reason", but that is another story.

OK. I can live with that fine distinction. I cannot recall whether I heard her use this metaphor or comparison or read it, but I have always used it to explain her concept to 10 year olds up to seasoned citizens. She said or wrote, "Suppose you saw a mother bird taking her fledgelings[sp ?] one by one out on a limb and before pushing them "out into the world" she broke their wings which is their main mechanism of survival?" What would you think of that mother bird?

Then she argued that it is the same horror of parents who consciously or subconsciously destroy a child's mind with anti-rational premises or actions and then push them "out into the world" and crippling their one mechanism they need to survive.

Since her novels are almost devoid of any families with children, I think there was one family in Galt's Gulch that had children which appeared on one page in the novel, which serverely restricts the applicability of the philosophy to most folks who have kids and the issues attendant to raising children. But that little illustration that she used can be instrumental in engaging family folks in examining her ideas.

[tjohnson]

She said or wrote, "Suppose you saw a mother bird taking her fledgelings[sp ?] one by one out on a limb and before pushing them "out into the world" she broke their wings which is their main mechanism of survival?"

Yes, Korzybski expressed a very similar sentiment - that we train our children in pathological reactions and despite our efforts some of them turn out OK. Imagine what we could do if the situation was reversed - we trained in proper human reactions and despite our efforts some turned out pathological anyway.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, I personally think of "morality" as belonging in religion, associated with "right" and "wrong".

GS,

Morality is a synonym for ethics in the context of Objectivism (and most philosophy). Ethics is a formal branch of philosophy. Have you read much philosophy? This is the branch where the nature of right and wrong is identified and defined. Right and wrong are value judgments, so Rand's approach was to ask what the standard of such value is.

Michael

[Selene]

Well, I personally think of "morality" as belonging in religion, associated with "right" and "wrong".

GS,

Morality is a synonym for ethics in the context of Objectivism (and most philosophy). Ethics is a formal branch of philosophy. Have you read much philosophy? This is the branch where the nature of right and wrong is identified and defined. Right and wrong are value judgments, so Rand's approach was to ask what the standard of such value is.

Michael

Precisely. Not the state and not a God(s). I think it is difficult for some folks to understand how revolutionary her concepts and philosophy actually was. Fifty years later, we have had years of the libertarian movement, the classical conservative movement and the resurgance of the republican conservative movement[a la Newt and his contract and futurism analysis]. Some neophytes might say that her "first blush" ideas are not that new, however the deeper internal aspects of her ethics, politics and psychological insights were and are breathtaking in their simplicity because you know, "feel" or understand that this is the nature of man.

Her destruction of the "high" moral ground occupied by altruism is perfect, in my view.

[tjohnson]

Morality is a synonym for ethics in the context of Objectivism (and most philosophy). Ethics is a formal branch of philosophy. Have you read much philosophy? This is the branch where the nature of right and wrong is identified and defined. Right and wrong are value judgments, so Rand's approach was to ask what the standard of such value is.

I suspect ethics and religion are very closely related. I have not read much philosophy and I don't ever plan on doing so. I consider most formal philosophy a waste of time but I do not think getting mankind to become more rational a waste of time.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sometimes Bob says weird things, but this time he's right on the money.

Rand:

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island - it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today - and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

Claiming (when you are alone on a desert island) that a rock is a house and that sand is clothing is not immoral, it's just very bad science. Bad ideas may be dumb, but they are not immoral as long as they don't harm anyone else.

Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism.

There or two kinds of "oughts" (at least). One is a moral ought and the other is the ought of matching means with ends.

Exactly, and here you see an example of the latter: if you want to survive on that island you "ought" to have better science than the example given above, but this is a very different "ought" from "you ought not to murder your neighbor just while you don't like his face".

Not according to Objectivism it isn't a very different "ought." According to Objectivism all "oughts" are of the if->then type; no "oughts" are deontological (impositions of duty). See her article "Causality Versus Duty" for her clearest statement on this issue.

I was amused in catching up to this thread to see both Bob K. and DF stating categorically what ethics means (e.g., post #25), although their meaning is not what Rand meant; i.e., doing onto Rand what they elsewhere have objected to her doing onto others by decreeing the "true" meaning of a term. ;-)

In subsequent posts, however, Bob showed awareness of Rand's defining ethics differently than he does (and than DF does). E.g., post #59 and post #34, in which he wrote (I'm radically excerpting in order to highlight the specific point I'm making):

[....] Aristotle does not define virtue in terms of how well A treats B. He concludes that if A is virtuous, then A will treat B well and not basely.

[....]

That having been said, I do not buy Aristotle's ethical package any more than I buy Rand's, but I understand what the issues are. There is nothing self evident or axiomatic about Aristotle's approach any more than Rand's approach. They have a position, with which one can agree or disagree.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Have you read -The Nichomachean Ethics-? Try it, you might learn something. Aristotle was a Statist for starters. His main measure of goodness was the health and good of the Polis, not the individual within it.

I haven't read Nichomachean Ethics in a long time, but this seems quite a stretch. Much of the book is about virtues and eudaimonia, which apply more to an individual person than a polity. Then there is part of Chap. 2, italics mine: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for the state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or city-states."

I haven't read it in a long time either. As I recall the details, I'd describe Aristotle as neither a "Statist" nor an "Individualist" in quite Rand's sense but, albeit with differences, as being very similar to Rand's approach to ethics. A number of persons knowledgeable of both Rand and Aristotle (such as Doug Den Uyl and Doug Rasmussen) consider Rand as within the Aristotelian tradition.

But why I replied to the above post is because I was struck by this wording: "whether to attain or to preserve".

Reminiscent of "Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep"? Had she read the wording you quote in a translation of Aristotle? What translation did you take the quote from?

Ellen

___

[Selene]

Sometimes Bob says weird things, but this time he's right on the money.

Rand:

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island - it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today - and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

Claiming (when you are alone on a desert island) that a rock is a house and that sand is clothing is not immoral, it's just very bad science. Bad ideas may be dumb, but they are not immoral as long as they don't harm anyone else.

Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism.

Welcome to the rational side. I am new to this forum. However, when you posted:

"Her point isn't clear from the quote given, but she isn't talking about error, instead about willful denial of what a person knows to be true -- and such willful denial is the ultimate evil according to Objectivism."

You helped clarify a better way to rebut them than I have been trying.

Excellent point. Thank you.

There or two kinds of "oughts" (at least). One is a moral ought and the other is the ought of matching means with ends.

Exactly, and here you see an example of the latter: if you want to survive on that island you "ought" to have better science than the example given above, but this is a very different "ought" from "you ought not to murder your neighbor just while you don't like his face".

Not according to Objectivism it isn't a very different "ought." According to Objectivism all "oughts" are of the if->then type; no "oughts" are deontological (impositions of duty). See her article "Causality Versus Duty" for her clearest statement on this issue.

I was amused in catching up to this thread to see both Bob K. and DF stating categorically what ethics means (e.g., post #25), although their meaning is not what Rand meant; i.e., doing onto Rand what they elsewhere have objected to her doing onto others by decreeing the "true" meaning of a term. ;-)

In subsequent posts, however, Bob showed awareness of Rand's defining ethics differently than he does (and than DF does). E.g., post #59 and post #34, in which he wrote (I'm radically excerpting in order to highlight the specific point I'm making):

[....] Aristotle does not define virtue in terms of how well A treats B. He concludes that if A is virtuous, then A will treat B well and not basely.

[....]

That having been said, I do not buy Aristotle's ethical package any more than I buy Rand's, but I understand what the issues are. There is nothing self evident or axiomatic about Aristotle's approach any more than Rand's approach. They have a position, with which one can agree or disagree.

Ellen

___

[merjet]

I haven't read Nichomachean Ethics in a long time, but this seems quite a stretch. Much of the book is about virtues and eudaimonia, which apply more to an individual person than a polity. Then there is part of Chap. 2, italics mine: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for the state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or city-states."

But why I replied to the above post is because I was struck by this wording: "whether to attain or to preserve".

Reminiscent of "Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep"? Had she read the wording you quote in a translation of Aristotle? What translation did you take the quote from?

Good comparison. The translator was W. D. Ross.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Merlin Jetton