The best of questions

[Wolf DeVoon]

The best of questions, and I thank you

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon on 22 May 2002 at 12:09:24 AM

In-Reply-To: Official: nothing can stop another terrorist attack posted by decimon

: Please explain to me why I'm to care about what are your concerns? I have no children. At the age of 56 I've lived the better part of my life. There is no afterlife to bother me. It is in my rational self-interest to do nothing so why am I to care about you or your child? We've not become altruists, have we?

I'm 52 this year, so I understand the point about having lived the better part of my life, with the proviso that there is something I want to do for my own sense of fulfillment and achievement before I become too infirm to make the attempt. Thank you for referencing Objectivism. Thank you also for asking the right question. I offer the following merely as a statement of opinion, hastily composed.

One of the intellectual traditions (and unprecedented material wealth made possible by millions who joined the American Experiment later and observed that tradition) we inherited free, gratis, was bequeathed to us by Jefferson, who spoke of our innocent posterity and the commonweal. Such concepts are not meaningless to me. I am among Jefferson's free and equal posterity, recipient of more than I could possibly produce in payment.

At the base of my theory of justice, echoing the valid progress of legal reasoning throughout the centuries, is the presumption of innocence and fundamentally fair if not perfectly objective trial of fact. You and every other person including the corporate "person" of the state stand theoretically equal before the law in this Anglo-American tradition of due process. For your own sake, I would argue, it behooves you to acknowledge the distinction between guilt and innocence. In early English common law, it was accepted that "A dead thing can do no felony," which exonerated inanimate objects (swords, knives). Recently reacquainted with a newborn's limited powers, I'm persuaded that they, too, are incapable of serious crime.

I have argued that the force of law is weak; culture is strong -- and liberty inalienable. When all three are aligned, the commonweal is observable and a cause for celebration of demonstrable, measurable social achievement. Undoubtedly, some individual(s) made it possible through first-mover innovation. But culture is not a personal work. In the heart and mind of every American, surely there is an awareness, however dimmed by confusion, that our prosperity, civility, and evolving aspirations are as much the received "blessings of liberty" and a vast scientific and capital infrastructure inherited from others, as they are also our individuated, unprompted and personal achievement(s). Without Ayn Rand, I could have done little or nothing, in my opinion. Without Fleming's penicillin, I wouldn't be here at all, because I contracted scarlet fever as a child.

There is no doubt in my mind that our society with others is only partly voluntary or deliberate, especially as minor children. I acknowledge a child's legal right to say "No!" however ill-advised and a child's right to petition the courts for relief. But the concept of legality did not commence with me. Roscoe Pound did the heavy lifting, citing Grotius and many others.

The specific issue at hand, raised by your question, is whether you or any other individual has -- for lack of a better word -- some civic obligation in respect of the truly innocent. I do not think it matters whether one has biological children or not. I find it difficult to turn a blind eye to suffering, and on the past board I agreed with Scott Miller that benevolence if not charity makes life more pleasant. My house sits between two shacks. If either shack burned to the ground, mine would not, because I've taken selfish preventative measures. But I could not remain indifferent to the fate of my poorer neighbors or their children. While there is no positive obligation to do anything at all, my ex-wife and I have been busy on and off for three years raising money to buy (at least to transport and refurbish) a fire engine for the village. I'm also interested in the suppression of crime and dangerous drug use, which does not affect me personally, because I have superlative provision for personal safety, but could deeply wound the mood and tenor of the community at large if allowed to grow unchecked.

So far, everything I've cited could be interpreted as selfishness. I want a peaceful, cheerful place to live. As an influential and trusted member of the community, like others who are similiarly situated, the future is mine to provide or neglect.

But there is a dimension of dignity that transcends one man's wish for local peace and prosperity. It is often observed today that the world has become a global market, a global village, by virtue of low-cost transport and wide diffusion of knowledge. Remarkably, this forum is regularly joined by real-time participants from three or four continents. Remarks in Congress are relayed everywhere on the planet and are monitored closely by millions of people, whose fortunes, for better or worse, are intimately linked to U.S. domestic economic and foreign policy. I asked you to participate in ending an injustice as I understand it, partly to limit our national exposure to Arab terrorist attacks in particular, but generally to advance certain principles of American political health. If you believe that individual freemen residing in the US have no power to influence the outcome, I will not argue it down. Much of my work has consisted of encouraging people to shrug. Eddie Willers ("Don't let it go!") is not my model of heroism or propriety. It is only in the context of opportunity that I suggested we raise as many voices as possible in objection to cabalistic, corrupt government. A democracy implies public debate -- especially now.

Having said too much, it comes down to this. I would prefer to die someday secure in the knowledge that I made an effort to defend the innocent. Countless children will inherit whatever we choose to provide or make an effort to provide, without the assurance of success. Jefferson looked at this continuity of history, past and future, and concluded he could not inflict, by indifference, certain servitude and degradation upon future generations.

I am sometimes a poor spokesman for human rights. My first concern was, properly, my personal ambitions and interests. But the puzzle of property brought me around to consider the dimension of "general consent" -- a widely shared agreement that does not bind any freeman, but supports his and others' claim to just possession. David Friedman thinks good laws and customs are inevitable. I don't. Utility is plain conjecture, and pragmatism a specific evil. General consent, if it means anything, is the slow, steady evolution of reason, pioneered by the few and transmitted to the many.

Please transmit. That's all I ask.

W.

[georgedonnelly]

Wolf, I really enjoy your writing. Thank you very much for sharing it.

[Barbara Branden]

A beautiful and wise article, Wolf. And I agree that "I would prefer to die someday secure in the knowledge that I made an effort to defend the innocent. Countless children will inherit whatever we choose to provide or make an effort to provide, without the assurance of success. Jefferson looked at this continuity of history, past and future, and concluded he could not inflict, by indifference, certain servitude and degradation upon future generations."

Barbara

[UncleJim]

A beautiful and wise article, Wolf. And I agree that "I would prefer to die someday secure in the knowledge that I made an effort to defend the innocent. Countless children will inherit whatever we choose to provide or make an effort to provide, without the assurance of success. Jefferson looked at this continuity of history, past and future, and concluded he could not inflict, by indifference, certain servitude and degradation upon future generations."

Barbara

Being that this is an Objectivist forum this implies it primary consists of rational persons. Since this is the case then it must be said that defending the innocent is a choice; not an obligation.

With that being said I must add that rational persons are those who love life (especially their own). Since this is the case; then, this answers why rational persons do, and will continue to, choose to defend the innocent.

Objectivism is ofter characterized as being a cold, heartless, emotionless philosophical view. This is an absurdity. And it is only an Objectivist who knows why its an absurdity because only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is.

[Barbara Branden]

UncleJim, you wrote: "....only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is." That's an astonishing statement. Surely you don't intend it to be taken literally.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivism is ofter characterized as being a cold, heartless, emotionless philosophical view. This is an absurdity. And it is only an Objectivist who knows why its an absurdity because only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is.

There were no Objectivists prior to Ayn Rand. So taken what you wrote literally we would conclude that for somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 years (approximately when our species originated) humans did not know what love is. To which I reply, Bull Cookies!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

UncleJim, you wrote: "....only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is." That's an astonishing statement. Surely you don't intend it to be taken literally.

Barbara

Of course I do.

A person who is reality oriented is, by definition, an Objectivist. And since love is strictly a reality oriented concept then only Objectivists know what love means.

To the others love is God or some other undefinable idea.

Edited February 15, 2008 by UncleJim

[UncleJim]

Objectivism is ofter characterized as being a cold, heartless, emotionless philosophical view. This is an absurdity. And it is only an Objectivist who knows why its an absurdity because only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is.

There were no Objectivists prior to Ayn Rand. So taken what you wrote literally we would conclude that for somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 years (approximately when our species originated) humans did not know what love is. To which I reply, Bull Cookies!

Ba'al Chatzaf

This simply cannot be a true representation of what actually exists. Ayn Rand did not invent reality. She simply explained how it operates. An Objectivist is someone who actually lives in accordance with natural law. People have been doing that ever since they have been people to do that.

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

[sjw]

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum".

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum".

Document it or it didn't happen and you're just making stuff up.

I'm beginning to think you are just a troll.

[UncleJim]

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum".

Shayne

This is what I found:

" "This is to say that I approve of the publication of The Objectivist Forum, that it promises to be a very interesting magazine, and that I recommend it to your attention.

"As its name indicates, this magazine is a forum for students of Objectivism to discuss their ideas, each speaking only for himself. . . .

"Harry Binswanger is a serious student (and teacher) of philosophy and has a thorough understanding of Objectivism's basic principles. . . .

"I am not editing this magazine, and my association with it is only that of philosophic consultant." "

I don't see your reference to where Ayn Rand called it a "religion."

I know the argument. "You're not an Objectivist until you've been inducted into that religion comprised of certified Objectivists."

Thats absurd! It violates the law of identity as applied to man: "man qua man." In other words: It violates the principles of Objectivism at their very root.

A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist.

It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

[sjw]

Document it or it didn't happen and you're just making stuff up.

Restate your request into something that isn't patently absurd and apologize for insulting me and maybe I'll help you.

Shayne

[sjw]

A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist.

It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

Harry Binswanger would disagree. I know that because your reaction was my reaction when I first read OPAR, I couldn't reconcile it with Peikoff's preface to OPAR, so asked HB about it and he totally disclaimed your viewpoint.

You are correct that philosophy should be a science and it should be about truth. And Objectivism is to a substantial degree, the truth. But it lacks an essential ingredient: if we find a mistake in a science, we fix the mistake. Ayn Rand disclaimed this, saying that fixing any mistakes was tantamount to making her philosophy a "hodgepodge". For all the goodness in her philosophy, she grossly undercut it with this statement, stripping Objectivism at its most fundamental point of individualism. What's more, actions speak louder than words: all the actions her acolytes have taken in her name since that time have done nothing but back up my interpretation.

Objectivism is a religion. That's why I no longer call myself that. I'm a Rational Individualist.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

Restate your request into something that isn't patently absurd and apologize for insulting me and maybe I'll help you.

(1) Asking for substantiation of an absurd statement may be absurd as well, but for the maker of the absurd statement to claim it to be absurd is redundantly and self-defeatingly so. Congratulations, you have successfully encircled yourself in absurdity.

(2) I do not require your help, sir. What help you require I will refrain from commenting on out of good taste.

(3) If you feel insulted then you most certainly deserved whatever insult you perceived.

(4) You would do well to either document your claim or retract it.

[edit: fix typo]

Edited February 15, 2008 by George Donnelly

[sjw]

(1) Asking for substantiation of an absurd statement may be absurd as well, but for the maker of the absurd statement to claim it to be absurd is redundantly and self-defeatingly so. Congratulations, you have successfully encircled yourself in absurdity.

If you don't see the absurdity in declaring that something didn't happen unless I document it then there's no helping you. It won't help you to point out that your touchiness is a symptom of being a religions acolyte who's just heard blasphemy. I hope you rescue yourself from the religion someday.

Ironically, I mostly agree with Ayn Rand. But unlike most Objectivists, I jealously guard my intellectual independence. And that is a cardinal sin of any religion, ergo your viciousness.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

If you don't see the absurdity in declaring that something didn't happen unless I document it then there's no helping you.

So I should replace the religion of Objectivism with the religion of Shayne? I should take your word for everything, even the most outrageous of pronunciations.

You are self-contradictory.

Ayn Rand never declared that Objectivism was a religion. Give me a break.

[UncleJim]

A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist.

It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

Harry Binswanger would disagree. I know that because your reaction was my reaction when I first read OPAR, I couldn't reconcile it with Peikoff's preface to OPAR, so asked HB about it and he totally disclaimed your viewpoint.

You are correct that philosophy should be a science and it should be about truth. And Objectivism is to a substantial degree, the truth. But it lacks an essential ingredient: if we find a mistake in a science, we fix the mistake. Ayn Rand disclaimed this, saying that fixing any mistakes was tantamount to making her philosophy a "hodgepodge". For all the goodness in her philosophy, she grossly undercut it with this statement, stripping Objectivism at its most fundamental point of individualism. What's more, actions speak louder than words: all the actions her acolytes have taken in her name since that time have done nothing but back up my interpretation.

Objectivism is a religion. That's why I no longer call myself that. I'm a Rational Individualist.

Shayne

OK!

Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint.

Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

[sjw]

So I should replace the religion of Objectivism with the religion of Shayne? I should take your word for everything, even the most outrageous of pronunciations.

You are self-contradictory.

Ayn Rand never declared that Objectivism was a religion. Give me a break.

I never said you should take my word for anything. I said that what exists, exists, regardless of what you or I say about it, and that you have no right to demand that I rub your nose in what exists on the one hand, while being rude and insulting to me on the other.

So I'm not being contradictory, you are being obtuse and childish.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

I said that what exists, exists, regardless of what you or I say about it,

Yet this statement by AR that O-ism is a "religion" does not _exist_. And there's the rub.

O-ism is a philosophy, regardless of what you or I say about it.

Until or unless someone makes any further substantive addition to the conversation I will refrain from adding further to this thread.

[sjw]

OK!

Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint.

Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

Again, I used to hold your viewpoint, in fact as recent as a few years ago. But unlike TAS I'm with Ayn Rand on this one: Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else. She can reserve the word for what she means if she wants to. And what she means is: for the price of calling yourself an "Objectivist", you agree to strip yourself of your intellectual independence. She doesn't say that outright, but it is implied in her words in "The Objectivist Forum", and it is implied by those who she handed her power and authority to when she died. It is rather bald-faced actually.

I would be embarrassed for it having taken as long as it did for me to recognize, except that Ayn Rand's works are genuine and sincere, the heart of her philosophy is indeed a philosophy of intellectual independence. That is what it is about in fact. It is only after she had created it that she implicitly attempted to destroy it with her later words and actions, not unlike Howard Roark destroying his buildings. With respect to Ayn Rand's philosophy: I revere the buildings, but not the act of destruction.

I do not morally condemn Ayn Rand for this destructive act, since really it had power only over the sheep. Perhaps she looked at those who surrounded her and in an act of contempt, pulled the rug out from under them.

Shayne

[sjw]

Yet this statement by AR that O-ism is a "religion" does not _exist_. And there's the rub.

You are pathetic.

[UncleJim]

OK!

Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint.

Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

Again, I used to hold your viewpoint, in fact as recent as a few years ago. But unlike TAS I'm with Ayn Rand on this one: Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else. She can reserve the word for what she means if she wants to. And what she means is: for the price of calling yourself an "Objectivist", you agree to strip yourself of your intellectual independence. She doesn't say that outright, but it is implied in her words in "The Objectivist Forum", and it is implied by those who she handed her power and authority to when she died. It is rather bald-faced actually.

I would be embarrassed for it having taken as long as it did for me to recognize, except that Ayn Rand's works are genuine and sincere, the heart of her philosophy is indeed a philosophy of intellectual independence. That is what it is about in fact. It is only after she had created it that she implicitly attempted to destroy it with her later words and actions, not unlike Howard Roark destroying his buildings. With respect to Ayn Rand's philosophy: I revere the buildings, but not the act of destruction.

I do not morally condemn Ayn Rand for this destructive act, since really it had power only over the sheep. Perhaps she looked at those who surrounded her and in an act of contempt, pulled the rug out from under them.

Shayne

We're on the same page. Even where it says she can define it in whatever she wants. It's that definition I use to support my position.

Edited February 15, 2008 by UncleJim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Rand's quote as given on the ARI FAQ page:

"I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith.

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine—an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). I chose the name 'Objectivism' at a time when my philosophy was beginning to be known and some people were starting to call themselves 'Randists.' I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name …

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."

[Ayn Rand, "To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum," The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1]

I obviously use another definition of the term "Objectivist" than Rand did here. And I am quite comfortable with the meaning I use, since I learned English way before I discovered Rand.

If one uses Rand's own standard stated above, being an Objectivist would mean somehow crawling into her brain and agreeing with every thought found in there, which is impossible, or else receiving her manifest consent to call oneself an Objectivist. Since she is dead, that is not possible any longer. So by her own declaration, if she did not ordain the person, he is not entitled to call himself an Objectivist (on penalty of "fraud"). That would mean no one after her death—almost no one at all nowadays.

This would mean that no one at ARI except Peikoff is entitled to call himself an Objectivist. They would have to present signed or published statements by Rand to prove that she gave her consent for them to call themselves Objectivists and I can't think of anyone who has that except Peikoff (at the beginning of The Ominous Parallels).

Well, there are those who wrote articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist and Who Is Ayn Rand? (and pre-break lectures). Her later statements affirmed that the works contained in those publications and lectures are official Objectivism, but in those statements, she did not call the people who wrote them "Objectivists."

I use the term "Objectivist" in the same way someone calls himself an "Existentialist" or "Kantian" or "Marxist," which means a person interested in, and highly influenced by, the ideas found in the bodies of thought designated by those words. Built into this concept is that fact that individuals exist and they are different from one another, thus there will be some differences of ideas between the author and the person interested/influenced.

I would suggest that there be some kind of term set for Rand-ordained Objectivist and non-Rand-ordained Objectivist, but there are so few of the first (there is only one I know of) that it is not really necessary for general understanding.

Michael

[sjw]

I would suggest that there be some kind of term set for Rand-ordained Objectivist and non-Rand-ordained Objectivist, but there are so few of the first (there is only one I know of) that it is not really necessary for general understanding.

Michael,

I disagree. I think there are three important categories:

1. Those who agree with Ayn Rand's quote that you just gave, who don't recognize the contradictions involved in calling themselves "Objectivist" but do so anyway. The essential nature of this group: They are authoritarians and sheep. Intellectual independence is a completely foreign concept to them.

2. Those who disagree with Ayn Rand's quote but persist in using the term "Objectivist" to refer to themselves while blatantly disregarding her wishes on this matter. That would included Bidinotto, TAS and perhaps half of the people on this site. I think it is disrespectful to Ayn Rand and counter-productive. And I suspect that Ayn Rand may have had a purpose in trying to drive rational people away from the term "Objectivism", she may have meant for leaving the term as a corral for the sheep.

3. Those who respect Ayn Rand's last wishes and the contradiction in the wish, let her have the freedom of blowing up her buildings, and adopt a different term, such as I do. I think "Rational Individualist" is actually better than "Objectivist", and would suggest that all rational individualists rally behind it.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I disagree with you that respect is even an issue in using definitions. Imagine the hell dictionary publishers would have to go through if this were the case.

The English language permits more than one definition per word, and I know of no place other than registered trademarks where a word is exclusive property.

Michael