Settling the debate on Altruism

[Brant Gaede]

Simply saying "man's rational capacity" is quite vague - Korzybski's explanation is very detailed. It explains that the "time-binding" occurs as a result of endeavours in mathematics and mechanics (read science) of one generation are used as starting points in the next generation.

You are contrasting a bare definition with an explanation. "Rational capacity" has been explained by a host of philosophers in far greater detail than Korzybski ever explained his definition. Moroever, his observations are commonplace among philosophers; much of Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution, for example, is based on the transmission and improvement of knowledge from one generation to the next.

You might know all this if you ever read anyone other than Korzybski. Oh, but I forgot -- Korzybski solved (or dismissed) every fundamental philosophical problem, so you don't need to read anyone else. Please forgive me for this oversight, but I sometimes hear orthodox Objectivists say the same thing about Rand, so I've grown suspicious of such cultish claims.

The "time" refers to the passage of generations, having "rationality" doesn't address this passing of knowledge from one generation to the next

This is a preposterous claim, but if Korzybski said so, it must be true.

Ghs

General Semantics is primarily a theory of sanity - not philosophy. I am not interested in Philosophy so I don't read it, I am interested in sanity and so I read about it. I'm sure many people have made similar observations as Korzybski but his was the first (and only AFAIK) general theory of sanity.

All this means is you are a Sanitist. That's a philosophy. If you really had no use for philosophy you simply wouldn't be here on what is a philosophy list. Words themselves denoting concepts are philosophy incarnate for they connote free will (choice) and reasoning minds.

--Brant

Edited March 25, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

General Semantics is primarily a theory of sanity - not philosophy. I am not interested in Philosophy so I don't read it, I am interested in sanity and so I read about it. I'm sure many people have made similar observations as Korzybski but his was the first (and only AFAIK) general theory of sanity.

Your aversion to philosophy was not shared by Korzybski. He dedicated Science and Sanity to a long list of works "which have greatly influenced my enquiry" -- including works by the philosophers Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Royce, Russell, and Whitehead. For the complete dedication, see:

http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzybski/science-sanity%20-%200009.htm

If Korzybski could learn from reading some of the great philosophers, his disciples should be able to learn something as well.

In case there is any misunderstanding, I should note that my obvious contempt for Korzybskian true believers no more reflects a contempt for Korzybski himself than my contempt for Randian true believers reflects a contempt for Rand herself. I have fundamental disagreements with Korzybski, but those are a different matter. Both Korzybski and Rand were original and provocative thinkers. They thought for themselves, which is more than can be said for many of their disciples.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Why would that distinction matter here? A theory of sanity (or of pickling cabbage, for that matter) would, I trust, not be absolved from having clear definitions or being subjected to the usual criticisms of other theories.

Well, it seems like George is trying to put general semantics into the category of Philosophy because he keeps bringing them into the conversation. Korzybski always intended gs to be an empirical science of man - one that would have experimentation and practical applications - ie. like promoting general sanity. He spent many years studying mental illness and it's possible semantic causes and treatment while preparing his theory. In short, there is nothing he would have liked better than to have his work subjected to the usual criticisms of other scientific theories. Take physics, for example. What is the definition of an electron? Do you imagine a physicist cares about that? He only care about the measurable relations he can make during interactions with said electrons. But in Philosophy, definitions take center stage and people argue for centuries about the proper definition. This is, in fact, an example of unsanity, according to general semantics.

[tjohnson]

Your aversion to philosophy was not shared by Korzybski. He dedicated Science and Sanity to a long list of works "which have greatly influenced my enquiry" -- including works by the philosophers Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Royce, Russell, and Whitehead. For the complete dedication, see:

http://www.rodsmith....%20-%200009.htm

If Korzybski could learn from reading some of the great philosophers, his disciples should be able to learn something as well.

In case there is any misunderstanding, I should note that my obvious contempt for Korzybskian true believers no more reflects a contempt for Korzybski himself than my contempt for Randian true believers reflects a contempt for Rand herself. I have fundamental disagreements with Korzybski, but those are a different matter. Both Korzybski and Rand were original and provocative thinkers. They thought for themselves, which is more than can be said for many of their disciples.

Ghs

Here is a passage from S&S;

In this analysis the 'philosophers' have been omitted. This is because they

require a special treatment. As an historical fact, many 'philosophers' have played

an important and, to be frank, sinister role in history. At the bottom of any historical

trend, we find a certain 'philosophy', a structural implication cleverly formulated by

some 'philosopher'. The reader of this work will later find that most 'philosophers'

gamble on multiordinal and elementalistic terms, which have no definite single (one-valued)

meaning, and so, by cleverness in twisting, can be made to appear to mean anything

desired. It is now no mystery that some quite influential 'philosophers' were

'mentally' ill. Some 'mentally' ill persons are tremendously clever in the

manipulation of words and can sometimes deceive even trained specialists. Among

the clever concoctions which appear in history as 'philosophic' systems, we can find

flatly opposing doctrines. Therefore, it has not been difficult at any period for the

rulers to select a cleverly constructed doctrine perfectly fitting the ends they desired.

Notice he says 'many', not all philosophers. I'm sure you can understand that not all Germans are Nazis, for example. Now why is it necessary that I read Bertram Russell just because Korzybski is indebted to him? Do I need to read Newton as well because many physicists and mathematicians are indebted to him?

[bmacwilliam]

General wrote:

Of course it seems as though it requires rationality to be a time-binder . . .

end quote

Popular Science Magazine has a brief article about how *Time* seems stretched out when you are falling to your death. "My whole life flashed in front of my eyes!" They have a guy hooked up and trace his brain patterns by simulating a fall to your death during a long free fall into a net.

I have heard it said that Time is how we consciously experience causality and it is actually not an existent.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I'm not sure that "not an existent" is the best way to describe it but if I may try to translate into words what math/physics tells us and that's the distinction between space and time is just a matter of perspective. The concepts are intrinsically connected. Like we experience "width" in relation to height and length - just change your perspective and they're interchangeable and so the width/height/length distinction doesn't really mean much at all.

Same thing with space and time - it's all just spacetime. We only "think" time is special because of our human perspective.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

Bob

[anthony]

Dan.

You ask: "So how to communicate concepts without language?

Perhaps one way is to show and tell."

Yeah, if asked to communicate "altruism", I would point towards 'The Virtue of Selfishness', and 'The Fountainhead'.

Which is why I insist that Rand was an expert 'illustrator', along with a masterful logical-structure builder.

Doesn't it make sense to you that the first, most important objective is to 'communicate' said concept to yourself?

Only as a secondary, to be able to communicate to others.

I've also been turning this round a long time, and one conclusion I've drawn is that in the hands of a brilliant writer, one leaps directly to the concept being indicated. Naturally words were utilised; but these are simple, readily comprehensible words.

Significantly, what remains is a 'picture' of the concept.

This picture, when applied to one's experience, becomes clearer as time goes by - until one starts discovering one's own words to describe it.

The transition (continuum?) between word and concept, and vice-versa, gets smoother with practice and integration.

Sorry if I don't explain this very well.

BTW, as an example, you may find it valuable to check out excerpts from Rand's writings on "sacrifice" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, as I did recently. After all this time I'm still in awe

of the lady. When she was good, she was very, very good...

Tony

[imurray]

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

Bob

If that's what she meant then we should looking for tautological arguments within her system.

[George H. Smith]

Here is a passage from S&S;

In this analysis the 'philosophers' have been omitted. This is because they

require a special treatment. As an historical fact, many 'philosophers' have played

an important and, to be frank, sinister role in history. At the bottom of any historical

trend, we find a certain 'philosophy', a structural implication cleverly formulated by

some 'philosopher'. The reader of this work will later find that most 'philosophers'

gamble on multiordinal and elementalistic terms, which have no definite single (one-valued)

meaning, and so, by cleverness in twisting, can be made to appear to mean anything

desired. It is now no mystery that some quite influential 'philosophers' were

'mentally' ill. Some 'mentally' ill persons are tremendously clever in the

manipulation of words and can sometimes deceive even trained specialists. Among

the clever concoctions which appear in history as 'philosophic' systems, we can find

flatly opposing doctrines. Therefore, it has not been difficult at any period for the

rulers to select a cleverly constructed doctrine perfectly fitting the ends they desired.

Notice he says 'many', not all philosophers. I'm sure you can understand that not all Germans are Nazis, for example. Now why is it necessary that I read Bertram Russell just because Korzybski is indebted to him? Do I need to read Newton as well because many physicists and mathematicians are indebted to him?

I didn't say that you should read some of the great philosophers because your guru was indebted to them. I said you "should be able to learn something" from them, just as Korzybski did. If you don't care to learn anything other than what you have assimilated from Korzybski, then I don't suppose you have a good reason -- but in that case, you must substitute Korzybski's opinion about the supposedly sinister influence of "many philosophers" for an informed judgment of your own. (The parallels here to Randian true believers are obvious and rather creepy.)

As for Korzybski's statement about some unnamed philosophers being "mentally ill," this is simply psychobabble of the highest order. I never cared for Rand's proclivity to dub philosophers she didn't like (e.g., Kant) as evil, but she is a model of objectivity in comparison to Korzybski.

How would you react if someone said that Korzybski was mentally ill and therefore not worth reading? Would you regard this as a legitimate criticism? Would you argue that Korzybski was not in fact mentally ill and is therefore worth reading? No, of course not -- or at least I hope not. You would, I hope, reject this tactic as an irrelevant and ludicrous ad hominem.

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

Ghs

[dan2100]

You ask: "So how to communicate concepts without language?

Perhaps one way is to show and tell."

Yeah, if asked to communicate "altruism", I would point towards 'The Virtue of Selfishness', and 'The Fountainhead'.

Which is why I insist that Rand was an expert 'illustrator', along with a masterful logical-structure builder.

Doesn't it make sense to you that the first, most important objective is to 'communicate' said concept to yourself?

Only as a secondary, to be able to communicate to others.

I've also been turning this round a long time, and one conclusion I've drawn is that in the hands of a brilliant writer, one leaps directly to the concept being indicated. Naturally words were utilised; but these are simple, readily comprehensible words.

Significantly, what remains is a 'picture' of the concept.

This picture, when applied to one's experience, becomes clearer as time goes by - until one starts discovering one's own words to describe it.

The transition (continuum?) between word and concept, and vice-versa, gets smoother with practice and integration.

Sorry if I don't explain this very well.

BTW, as an example, you may find it valuable to check out excerpts from Rand's writings on "sacrifice" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, as I did recently. After all this time I'm still in awe

of the lady. When she was good, she was very, very good...

Tony

Ah, I meant to write "to show" not "to show and tell." Obviously, if you "tell" you're using language.

I think your comments are generally correct. I'd say it's less about being a "brilliant" writer than trying to be a clear writer -- and the latter probably has to do with thinking styles or with one's general approach to these things and with the usual problems with clear writing, such as considering one's likely audience, what one is trying to get across, potential objections and confusions... those sorts of things.

[tjohnson]

How would you react if someone said that Korzybski was mentally ill and therefore not worth reading? Would you regard this as a legitimate criticism?

If the person who said this actually knew something about mental illness then, yes, I would regard this as legitimate criticism.

[tjohnson]

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

[dan2100]

Notice he says 'many', not all philosophers. I'm sure you can understand that not all Germans are Nazis, for example. Now why is it necessary that I read Bertram Russell just because Korzybski is indebted to him? Do I need to read Newton as well because many physicists and mathematicians are indebted to him?

I didn't say that you should read some of the great philosophers because your guru was indebted to them. I said you "should be able to learn something" from them, just as Korzybski did. If you don't care to learn anything other than what you have assimilated from Korzybski, then I don't suppose you have a good reason -- but in that case, you must substitute Korzybski's opinion about the supposedly sinister influence of "many philosophers" for an informed judgment of your own. (The parallels here to Randian true believers are obvious and rather creepy.)

As for Korzybski's statement about some unnamed philosophers being "mentally ill," this is simply psychobabble of the highest order. I never cared for Rand's proclivity to dub philosophers she didn't like (e.g., Kant) as evil, but she is a model of objectivity in comparison to Korzybski.

How would you react if someone said that Korzybski was mentally ill and therefore not worth reading? Would you regard this as a legitimate criticism? Would you argue that Korzybski was not in fact mentally ill and is therefore worth reading? No, of course not -- or at least I hope not. You would, I hope, reject this tactic as an irrelevant and ludicrous ad hominem.

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

Ghs

Minor quibble: While I generally agree here, reading Newton and other early scientists is, in my view, a profitable undertaking -- even for the budding or current scientist. I think it not only gives perspective -- especially good because one thing I've noticed in the natural sciences is forgetting past insights, theories, and data; and a cycling of erroneous views in some cases simply because those proposing a new theory are not much aware of the history of the field -- but because also some of the classics of science, such as Newton's Principia are models of good method. (This is perhaps a case for reading some of the classics and not every last article or scrap written by every natural scientist since Newton's time. Of course, sometimes discovery in science is rediscovery. A recent example comes to mind. Clive Finlayson notes in his The Humans Who Went Extinct: Why Neanderthals Died Out and We Survived that wild macaques in Burma were noted to used stones to open shellfish back in, if my memory's correct, the early 19th century. The behavior was rediscovered recently in Thailand after the 2004 Tsunami. Had more people been paying attention to the older observations it wouldn't have come as much of a surprise -- and perhaps the whole slew of recent discoveries that humans are hardly the only tool users would have been part of the conventional wisdom decades ago...)

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_ Mac "It's a little thing called a "Gene".

Evolutionary psychology (PE) is a pseudoscience. It has so many philosophical and scientific flaws that I don't really have time or desire to discuss all of them. However I have to mention at least one objection to PE which relates to our topic.

We're talking ethics here. Ethics or morals are code of values accepted by choice. Biological or gene determinism effectively eliminates Free Will, mind and therefore morals as such. The organisms which their only purpose is to transfer genes don't need any ethics. Animals do just fine without to define "good" and "bad". So if you view people as procreating living machines, don't bother yourself with ethical problems.

Just because there are some questionable and speculative EP ideas doesn't mean that gene-centric behaviour is questionable. These ideas (the ones I speak of) are mainstream evolutionary thought, hardly fringe. Your response only serves to clarify your profound ignorance of science. I have no problem with the criticism of specific ideas, but for a so-called "rational" person to believe that our behavioral traits didn't evolve right along with our physical ones is beyond my comprehension.

"It has so many philosophical and scientific flaws "

I always find it amusing that when evidence suggests a philosophical premise error, then the science that found it must have a philosophical flaw.

"The organisms which their only purpose is to transfer genes don't need any ethics."

Wrong again. What if ethics in our cognitive niche is advantageous to the reproduction and survival of our genes?

"So if you view people as procreating living machines, don't bother yourself with ethical problems."

If you believe otherwise, don't bother yourself with reality.

Bob

I only can repeat that the notion of biological determinism abnegates the concept of free will, mind and morals. If science fails to make a distinction between man and animal, if it substitutes man's conceptual behavior by reproductive drive, then such a "science" contradicts everything known about man as rational being and cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, I think that PE is simply another version of collectivism/altruism in scientific disguise. In the nutshell it claims that man's life belongs to the future generations, and the only ultimate purpose of his life is a transfer of genes which becomes the standard of value. It advocates biological egoism and social altruism. As Richard Dowkins, PE guru and self-proclaimed altruist wrote "I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene transfer is ruthless egoism...let us try to teach generosity and altruism because we all born selfish". But even he said “I’m not advocating a morality based on evolution" (The Selfish Gene pg2-3). If you’re happy to accept as reality the situation which reduces man to the status of the stud-horse and call PE "science" instead BS, then it's your choice. But don't fool yourself by idea, that such a "reality" has anything to do with man and morals.

"I only can repeat that the notion of biological determinism abnegates the concept of free will, mind and morals."

Evolutionary Behavioural Development != Biological Determinism

"If science fails to make a distinction between man and animal, if it substitutes man's conceptual behavior by reproductive drive, then such a "science" contradicts everything known about man as rational being and cannot be taken seriously."

Man is an animal, a rational animal that occupies a unique cognitive niche. Yet another false dichotomy.

"Moreover, I think that PE is simply another version of collectivism/altruism in scientific disguise. In the nutshell it claims that man's life belongs to the future generations, and the only ultimate purpose of his life is a transfer of genes which becomes the standard of value."

Nobody is forcing you to adopt this standard of value. Do what you want, but this IS how we were built and therefore is the most reasonable, rational "qua" man standard of value - by far. More importanly though, this is mainstream evolutionary theory. I'm actually explaining to someone - in 2010 - the rock-bottom genetic basis of evolutionary fundamentals. Did you attend high school, or are you 170 years old? Seriously, WTF?

"As Richard Dowkins, PE guru and self-proclaimed altruist wrote "I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene transfer is ruthless egoism"

Sometimes, but the extension to this is that after the transfer happens, ensuring genetic survival (and subsequent reproduction) would without question involve altruism. Remember, reproduction is just one part of the picture. Survival of offspring is also critical. Some animals have evolved pure numbers-based strategies like insects, but we must invest and care a great deal for our offspring at a substantial cost. I suppose it's just a coincidence that youth/teenagers are extremely selfish and self-centred on the whole. Just pure coincidence eh? Just happenstance that families are extremely cohesive and this is where we see the most altruistic behaviour? Just pure chance that mothers are, on the whole, extraordinarily dedicated to their children. Let's see, only about a billion other behaviours that fit the gene-centric model. Does coincidence become evidence at a million, billion? What?

Bob

[dan2100]

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

Without having read a great deal of philosophy works, how would you know that?

[dan2100]

How would you react if someone said that Korzybski was mentally ill and therefore not worth reading? Would you regard this as a legitimate criticism?

If the person who said this actually knew something about mental illness then, yes, I would regard this as legitimate criticism.

Then it appears you don't understand logical reasoning and need to consider that without such an understanding all else is off the table. (No jab at Korzybski. I actually am interested in him, especially as his ideas relate to Austrian and Polish philosophy.)

Edited March 25, 2010 by Dan Ust

[George H. Smith]

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

Are you serious? Or is this some kind of joke?

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

Without having read a great deal of philosophy works, how would you know that?

Based on what I have read I am inferring that.

[dan2100]

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

Without having read a great deal of philosophy works, how would you know that?

Based on what I have read I am inferring that.

Perhaps you could share some examples... and would you be specific as to what you mean by "mental illness" -- which seems, to me, to be an extremely vague concept?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Dan Ust

[merjet]

Lastly, your comparison of reading early scientists, such as Newton, to reading early philosophers once again reveals your profound ignorance of the difference between the natural sciences and philosophy.

I'm quite aware of the difference - philosophy is mostly a symptom of mental illness. I guess that's sort of a thorn in your side, eh? Seeing how you have made a career out of it?

Without having read a great deal of philosophy works, how would you know that?

Based on what I have read I am inferring that.

I'm only interested in valid and sound reasoning.

Does that mean you never make logical inferences from a hypothesis/premise that you haven't verified is true? After all, your conclusion may be unsound. Regardless, it is something you do often enough on OL.

[dan2100]

I'm only interested in valid and sound reasoning.

Does that mean you never make logical inferences from a hypothesis/premise that you haven't verified is true? After all, your conclusion may be unsound. Regardless, it is something you do often enough on OL.

This leads me to believe someone's interests change depending on the needs for oneupping in a particular discussion.

[Peter]

I wrote:

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

Bob Mac responded:

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

end quote

I may have a chance to start reading the book again this evening, because when I read that I stopped and don’t remember any further explanation from the author.

Bob, there is a charitable “other” explanation, that truth and rationality did not take a back seat, but were always part of her thinking. Her emotional repugnance towards altruism was a “sense of life feeling,” backed up by her emerging philosophy.

Her obvious mistakes that she would not acknowledge were regrettable.

A few off the top of my head: her stance on the unacceptability of a female president, and her stance on the gay life style. Glorifying Smoking and then not putting a caveat into Atlas Shrugged about smoking after she was diagnosed with lung cancer. Her affair with Nathaniel and her treatment of Barbara Branden. Her cultivation of a cult governing a philosophy that values each individuals’ reason over all. Passing “moral judgment” on a host of people and shunning them.

I will get back to you on the “Goddess” book.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[imurray]

I wrote:

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

Bob Mac responded:

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

end quote

I may have a chance to start reading the book again this evening, because when I read that I stopped and don’t remember any further explanation from the author.

Bob, there is a charitable “other” explanation, that truth and rationality did not take a back seat, but were always part of her thinking. Her emotional repugnance towards altruism was a “sense of life feeling,” backed up by her emerging philosophy.

Her obvious mistakes that she would not acknowledge were regrettable.

A few off the top of my head: her stance on the unacceptability of a female president, and her stance on the gay life style. Glorifying Smoking and then not putting a caveat into Atlas Shrugged about smoking after she was diagnosed with lung cancer. Her affair with Nathaniel and her treatment of Barbara Branden. Her cultivation of a cult governing a philosophy that values each individuals’ reason over all. Passing “moral judgment” on a host of people and shunning them.

I will get back to you on the “Goddess” book.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

I just have one question: Who is going to settle the debate next?

This thread is in desperate need of a facilitator.

Who knows, maybe the idea that it can be resolved is a bit altruistic???

Edited March 25, 2010 by Panoptic

[bmacwilliam]

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

Bob

If that's what she meant then we should looking for tautological arguments within her system.

Well...

I find that her "Objective" ethics that outline the moral code of a good Objectivist are fundamentally based on man's life qua man and the "qua" part simply means a good Objectivist. That's about as tautological as you're gonna get.

Bob

[jeffrey smith]

The “Goddess of the Market” which I just received in the mail states at the beginning that Rand sought to destroy all philosophical justifications for totalitarianism, especially *altruism*.

I am really interested in the justification of this statement. I came to this conclusion or at least strong suspicion that this motivation was indeed at the true top of her value system and that truth and rationality consistently took a back seat. I do not know this to be true. Can you elaborate a little? It seems to me to be the simplest explanation of why an intelligent person would make such obvious mistakes and then never correct them.

Bob

If that's what she meant then we should looking for tautological arguments within her system.

Well...

I find that her "Objective" ethics that outline the moral code of a good Objectivist are fundamentally based on man's life qua man and the "qua" part simply means a good Objectivist. That's about as tautological as you're gonna get.

Bob

I wouldn't say that the faults are tautological per se (except for the famous incipit--"Existence exists"--which not even Plato nor Kant denied).

But the key point of Objectivism rests not on any logical argument, nor any argument from facts, but simple assertion: that man's nature is that of being a rational and productive being ("man qua man"). That's really stating an ubervalue, so to speak: the basic and foundational value principle from which all others flow. Nothing in the universe dictates this foundational value as being the only possible choice, and it is possible to construct other value systems based on different ideas of what man "qua man" might be. Nor is the choice of survival as the principle on which to decide what is and is not moral as brilliant as it seems. In the end, we are all going to die, and if survival is your guiding light, then your efforts are ultimately doomed; all you can do is stave off the inevitable for as long as possible. Probably heroic, but ultimately futile, and what is ultimately futile can not be ultimately valuable.

Jeffrey S.