Settling the debate on Altruism

[anthony]

I don't think that the practical aspects of "sacrifice"/sacrifice have been considered sufficiently. Though the morality has been well argued, in Rand's favour.

IF, sacrifice is to some here, the loss of a lesser value, to gain a greater one, then it is inarguable that 99% of actions that a fairly rational or reasonable person take - are all sacrifices.

A man working every day to gain money, and advance his career?

Sacrifice.

A student working his way through college, to earn a degree?

Sacrifice.

A mother feeding her baby, rather than buying something she desires?

Sacrifice.

A chess player offering up his queen to be taken, expecting to win the game?

Sacrifice.

A man telling the truth, and keeping his self-esteem, rather than bowing to pressure?

Etc..never one instance of self-interest in all of this.

If these are all sacrifices, commited every day, unremarkable and normal - then all life, from a baby taking first steps, and falling down, to getting out of bed in the morning onwards, is sacrifice. Is the accepted meaning wrong; or is life wrong? (And of course, any of the above people, if questioned deeply will concede that it certainly was no sacrifice.)

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

Tony

[tjohnson]

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

I don't think a person would give up a greater value for a lesser one unless they were forced to or were tricked into it.

[Dragonfly]

Oh, I get it now. It's fine for you to use words like "significant" that are ambiguous to others or don't apply the same way in every case, but not okay for Rand to use words like "duty" or "rational" which are ambiguous to you or don't apply the same way in every case.

The point is not that the word "significant" is ambiguous, but that it is a subjective notion (what is significant to A doesn't have to be significant to B). We see the same subjectivity in Rand's own examples, even if she uses a different definition of sacrifice: she gives two examples of a woman who has to choose between saving her child or buying a hat. The situation is in both examples exactly the same: the woman has to choose between saving her child by renouncing to buy the hat, or buying the hat at the cost of the well-being of her child. Yet according to Rand, in one situation it is a sacrifice, in the other one not, the only difference being the value that the woman attaches to the well-being of her child and to the hat.

[Dragonfly]

I don't think that the practical aspects of "sacrifice"/sacrifice have been considered sufficiently. Though the morality has been well argued, in Rand's favour.

IF, sacrifice is to some here, the loss of a lesser value, to gain a greater one, then it is inarguable that 99% of actions that a fairly rational or reasonable person take - are all sacrifices.

We speak only about "sacrifice" when giving up the lesser value is a significant loss to that person, when it is something that hurts, not for every exchange between a lower and a higher value.

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

Depending on the context: a loss, an error, a blunder.

[tjohnson]

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

I don't think a person would give up a greater value for a lesser one unless they were forced to or were tricked into it.

Maybe this is the point - people are tricked into believing it's better to put someone else's interests above their own. Objectivism tries to help people realize this is happening?

[Daniel Barnes]

I don't think that the practical aspects of "sacrifice"/sacrifice have been considered sufficiently. Though the morality has been well argued, in Rand's favour.

IF, sacrifice is to some here, the loss of a lesser value, to gain a greater one, then it is inarguable that 99% of actions that a fairly rational or reasonable person take - are all sacrifices.

A man working every day to gain money, and advance his career?

Sacrifice.

A student working his way through college, to earn a degree?

Sacrifice.

A mother feeding her baby, rather than buying something she desires?

Sacrifice.

A chess player offering up his queen to be taken, expecting to win the game?

Sacrifice.

A man telling the truth, and keeping his self-esteem, rather than bowing to pressure?

Etc..never one instance of self-interest in all of this.

Errr....they're all examples of self interest!

If these are all sacrifices, commited every day, unremarkable and normal - then all life, from a baby taking first steps, and falling down, to getting out of bed in the morning onwards, is sacrifice. Is the accepted meaning wrong; or is life wrong? (And of course, any of the above people, if questioned deeply will concede that it certainly was no sacrifice.)

First of all, the meanings of words are always rather vague, with lots of shades of meaning (this fact, incidentally, contradicts a standard Randian dogma about verbal precision). Hence if you want to push them, as you do with "sacrifice" here, you can. The danger is, however, that you end up with a verbalist argument (ie an argument over a word's "true" meaning), which sidetracks the discussion away from the problem at hand. It's better that everyone just agrees on what meaning we're using, and then discussion is possible.

Secondly, I don't really know why Rand chose to define a word with the opposite of what it usually means. It could be she's trying to rig the argument - this seems to be the case for example, with her elided definition of "selfishness" in VOS. Perhaps it's because she had English as second language. Or it could be that as she was a very arrogant and un-selfcritical thinker (which is not to say she wasn't highly intelligent), surrounded by sycophants, she simply made some lazy assumptions that no-one corrected. Whatever the reason, the practice of rewriting the dictionary as you make your arguments can only lead to just the sort of confusions we see on this thread.

But certainly it is a testimony to her charismatic power that people would presume that the accepted meanings of words, or even life itself, is "wrong" just because they clash with Rand's assertions!

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

There's no doubt many versions of "loss" that capture this meaning. For example, what traders call a "haircut"...;-)

Edited April 8, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

Shorter Rand:

"What you mean by up, I mean by down, and what you mean by down, I mean by up. Now, let's talk about elevators...."

:-)

[anthony]

So, if this is the 'accepted' (but rejected) definition of the concept, I challenge anyone to provide a name for its opposite.

Please give me a word for giving up a greater value, for a lesser.

Anyone?

I don't think a person would give up a greater value for a lesser one unless they were forced to or were tricked into it.

Maybe this is the point - people are tricked into believing it's better to put someone else's interests above their own. Objectivism tries to help people realize this is happening?

Too true, GS. As with the *advocacy of altruism*, so it goes with the advocacy of self sacrifice.

Rand said something along the lines of "if someone comes up to you preaching sacrifice, RUN! You will be the loser, and they expect to be the benefactor." (Our respective governments, perhaps?)

Daniel, yes they are all examples of self-interest; sorry, I meant to add a smiley - sarcasm doesn't transfer well into print.

Tony

[tjohnson]

Too true, GS. As with the *advocacy of altruism*, so it goes with the advocacy of self sacrifice.

Maybe you have provided the elusive term yourself here, self-sacrifice.

The traditional meaning of 'sacrifice' is to give up a lesser value for a greater one but a 'self-sacrifice' is to give up a value for nothing?

[tjohnson]

Daniel, yes they are all examples of self-interest; sorry, I meant to add a smiley - sarcasm doesn't transfer well into print.

Try this next time [sarcasm]Enter sarcasm here[/sarcasm].

[imurray]

Shorter Rand:

"What you mean by up, I mean by down, and what you mean by down, I mean by up. Now, let's talk about elevators...."

:-)

I agree that words should be used carefully and that every attempt should be made to follow the basic rules of precision and propriety; however, many if not most philosophers take some liberty in using words in ways that aren't aligned with their denotative meanings. It doesn't make it wrong per se, but it brings us into the realm of technical jargon where one needs to familiarize oneself with the "special" meanings. I thing George and others have pointed out the more serious problem - Rand seems to occasionally slip between denotative and technical meanings and violates propriety within the context of her own work.

[anthony]

Too true, GS. As with the *advocacy of altruism*, so it goes with the advocacy of self sacrifice.

Maybe you have provided the elusive term yourself here, self-sacrifice.

The traditional meaning of 'sacrifice' is to give up a lesser value for a greater one but a 'self-sacrifice' is to give up a value for nothing?

GS,

This is a good point. I have used and do use the two terms interchangeably, and have tried to be more careful with it.

People outside Objectivism observe a difference between sacrifice and self-sacrifice, and become confused.

In Rand-view, imo, it is evident that the two mean the same. For every sacrifice,(greater value,to lesser or none) there is a victim (a self) who sanctions it - consciously or not.

Tony

[Xray]

In other words, she is a proponent of the idea of a thought crime. A person would in her view be immoral, no matter what he does, if he has the "wrong" ideas. I find that a despicable idea. It's the same as those fundamentalist christians who insist that merely desiring your neighbor's wife is a sin, even if you don't act on your desires. What a horrible philosophy!

That's what it boils down to indeed: those who don't hold Rand-approved values are immoral.

"If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite." (Rand )

http://exiledonline....yn-rands-heart/

Rand arbitrarily claims that friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in man's life. Like so often, she mistakes her subjective preferences for a fact appyling to everyone else.

As for terms like "emotional parasite" - "parasite" is used figuratively here, indicating a subjective value judgement.

If I had a house guest like Rand, who callously disturbs my sleep each night by letting the bathwater run for hours and hammering away at the typewriter, I could well call such a person an "emotional parasite" I would try to get rid of.

View Post Peter Taylor, on 07 April 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

I recently wrote about the advisability of George H. Smith writing a book that improved on Rand, especially in the logic department. She combined artistry with philosophy to advance her ideas, but (controversially,) that may not have always been as precise as needed.

D. Barnes: From what I've seen he'd be the man for the job.

G.H. Smith could do that, no question. I'm currently reading "Why Atheism" which also contains a chapter on Rand's theory of knowledge. Too bad Smith did not apply "Smith's Scalpel" (I'll call it that) as radically as he did with the theists (for example in his brilliant 'elfists' versus 'a-elfists' chapter), but gave Rand and especially Peikoff a pass.

D. Barnes: OK, guys, the commentary around this has become muddled, when the situation is clearcut. So let's break it down. Here's Rand:

"The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice'...If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Now let's put what she's saying into a logical form:

P1: A 'sacrifice' is (defined by Rand) the exchange of a greater value for a lesser value.

P2: Sacrifices are immoral.

P3: A mother sacrifices buying the hat for feeding the child.

C: The mother is immoral to do so.

There is no point trying to deny it: this is the clear logical implication of this passage as Rand wrote it. It's nothing to do with any supposed "interpretation" of it.

AFAICS there are two main possibilities, as I wrote in my original post, if anyone cares to look:

1) Rand meant it - and she does go on about how much she "means it" when she says outrageous things.

2) Rand didn't meant it - she has got herself all befuddled, the passage is a blunder.

I opt for 2). Rand is confused.

This is also consistent with my primary premise in dealing with Rand: that she often writes in vague, inconsistent, and confused fashion, just like other philosophers.

I opt for 2) as well. Rand got entangled by trying to mesh her ideas of "sacrifice" and "objective value" with a subjective value idea, without becoming aware of the contradiction.

I have the impression that Rand, in several passages of her writings, was directed by impulsive feelings more than by cognition.

View Post whYNOT, on 08 April 2010 - 11:01 AM, said:

I don't think that the practical aspects of "sacrifice"/sacrifice have been considered sufficiently. Though the morality has been well argued, in Rand's favour.

IF, sacrifice is to some here, the loss of a lesser value, to gain a greater one, then it is inarguable that 99% of actions that a fairly rational or reasonable person take - are all sacrifices.

A man working every day to gain money, and advance his career?

Sacrifice.

A student working his way through college, to earn a degree?

Sacrifice.

A mother feeding her baby, rather than buying something she desires?

Sacrifice.

A chess player offering up his queen to be taken, expecting to win the game?

Sacrifice.

A man telling the truth, and keeping his self-esteem, rather than bowing to pressure?

Etc..never one instance of self-interest in all of this.

D. Barnes: Errr....they're all examples of self interest!

And the self-interest aspect is in perfect accordance with the definition of "sacrifice" actually being an act of an individual trading (what he/she conceives as) a lower value in order to obtain (what he/she conceives as) a higher value.

Imo Rand's premise that 'sacrifices are immoral' has no leg to stand on.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

This business of what man places first--I say woman --kind of begs the question of what is man (meaning both sexes, of course). Humans are socially interconnected beings with family ties the most important. When it's a matter of shear survival you do that work necessary for that. Creative work is a luxury of economic surplus. Ayn Rand simply needed a deeper and broader liberal arts education to support many of her statements which would have been quite different I think if she had had such.

People can either despicable her at every chance or use her and her ideas as appropriate as food for thought and intellectual adventure and growth. If she had been substantially different in a *better* human being sense, we'd have never heard of her. Let's posit two Rands: one negative and one positive. It's time to get over the negative and get on with the other by using the negative only for a chance at positive consequences.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

When it's a matter of shear survival you do that work necessary for that.

I didn't know that shearing was so dangerous.

[Brant Gaede]

When it's a matter of shear survival you do that work necessary for that.

I didn't know that shearing was so dangerous.

LOL.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

Rand seems to occasionally slip between denotative and technical meanings and violates propriety within the context of her own work.

I agree with this too, and have frequently referred to the way Rand seems to confuse herself sometimes.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[Peter]

And now an example of Randian fine-tuning.

From Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right” by Jennifer Burns, page 100:

“When she arrived in California she was working on her first non-fiction book, a project she eventually abandoned in favor of her third novel. Much as “The Fountainhead” had showcased her ideas about individualism, this book would reflect Rand’s growing fealty to reason and rationality. After three years in California Rand had redefined the goal of her writing. Once Individualism had been the motive power of her work; now she explained to a correspondent, “Do you know that my personal crusade in life, (in the philosophical sense) is not merely to fight collectivism, nor to fight altruism? These are only consequences, effects, and not causes. I am out after the real cause, the real root of evil on earth – the irrational.”

Soon after this development came Rand’s dawning awareness of the differences that separated her from the libertarians or “reactionaries” she now considered her set. At issue was her opposition to altruism and, more significantly, her unwillingness to compromise with those who defended traditional values. In 1943 Rand had been one of the few voices to make a compelling case for capitalism and limited government. In the years that followed she would become part of a chorus, a role that did not suit her well.”

End quote

I would like to see "irrational" pummelled to death too.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Daniel Barnes]

I would like to see "irrational" pummelled to death too.

Well I suppose it might be worth discussing this sometime, seeing this is what Rand thought she was all about.

There is a lot to take in with this. However, first thing I note is that while she makes much of her commitment to logic, she does not provide 1) the logical basis for that commitment (she doesn't seem to be aware that this is a well-known problem) and 2) having made it, she gives herself license to evade that commitment by doing what we've just seen her do elsewhere - coming up with her own vague and obscure meaning for the term rather than committing to the usual standards. This practice (just like "sacrifice" and many others) no only confuses the situation yet again, but where standard logic happens to disagree Rand's assertions - quite often as it happens - this opens the door to an appeal to an equally obscure, alternative Objecto-logic, which overcomes these clashes in a way no-one sees fit to explain.

Is it any wonder that non-Objectivists like myself view this sort of thing with deep suspicion?

Edited April 9, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[George H. Smith]

I'm currently reading "Why Atheism" which also contains a chapter on Rand's theory of knowledge. Too bad Smith did not apply "Smith's Scalpel" (I'll call it that) as radically as he did with the theists (for example in his brilliant 'elfists' versus 'a-elfists' chapter), but gave Rand and especially Peikoff a pass.

I don't think I gave Peikoff a "pass" at all. But I will concede that I made a last minute decision to delete two polemical paragraphs that originally appeared near the end of my discussion. They read as follows:

[begin quote]

Let me be blunt: Rand’s contextualism, as interpreted by Peikoff and his colleagues, has become virtually indistinguishable from epistemological relativism. And this is the most vicious kind of relativism imaginable – one that, if consistently applied, leads to inane and sophomoric paradoxes. It is strange indeed to hear, from the mouths of self-professed defenders of reason and objective knowledge, that what is “true” for you may not be “true” for me; that a theory, though false today, was “immutably true” at an earlier time; that a valid syllogism, if the reasons for its validity are not properly understood by a particular individual, is not “valid” for that person; and that there is no such thing as “absolute truth,” but only truths that are “contextually absolute.” .

If this is not epistemological relativism, crude and unadorned, then I cannot imagine what could possibly qualify. Yet all of these claims (and more) are now being promoting under the banner of “Objectivism.” The mind boggles – and eventually grows weary of deceptive labels.

[close quote]

I deleted these paragraphs primarily because I thought they focused too much on the internecine conflict between the Orthos and the Neos in the Objectivist movement, and also because they referred to some controversial arguments that I didn't explain elsewhere in my discussion.

My personal belief was, and still is, that Peikoff pushed some of Rand's epistemological ideas to absurd limits that she would have rejected. Thus, had I left the above passage in the book, I would have needed to explore this problem, and I didn't want to get sidetracked into that in-movement controversy.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"However, first thing I note is that while she makes much of her commitment to logic, she does not provide 1) the logical basis for that commitment (she doesn't seem to be aware that this is a well-known problem....

What would an argument for the "logical basis" of one's "commitment to logic" even look like? The very process of explaining this "logical basis" would presuppose one's commitment to logic, would it not?

There are many "well-known" problems in philosophy that are more on the order of pseudo-problems.

Ghs

[Peter]

Daniel Barnes mentioned Reason as a topic, and directed us to the quote from “The Ayn Rand Lexicon,” concerning Reason:

. . . It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge . . . .”

end quote

I up to the point in “Goddess of the Market,” where Ayn Rand breaks off her friendship with Isabel Paterson, over Isabel’s religion. After the split, the author Jennifer Burns writes that Rand’s prior assessment of Paterson’s abilities as a thinker and writer undergoes a change for the worse, a pattern that seems to reappear later in Rand's life. Where once Rand credited Paterson for some of her intellectual growth, after the split she claims to have done it all on her own.

Can a person believe in God and be rational at the core level? It is almost one of those polite PC rationales when we say, “Sure, a person can be rational, and use reason in their daily life yet still feel a sense of awe over a super being whose existence cannot be proved.”

I am one of those who is deliberately NOT PC but I think a person can be rational and not rational in one teeny tiny area, say when you see a loved one off at the airport, or a son off to Afghanistan and as they are leaving you say a little prayer for their safety. But does a person who is raised in a non-religious household do that? I don’t know because I was raised semi-religiously if there is such a thing. I catch myself saying a little prayer sometimes.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

George H. Smith recently responded to Xray. I always loved the way Tony Danza said, “Angela” to a character on the show, the same actress who later appeared on “Ugly Betty,” once again as the Mom. He kind of said, AAAnnn Ju Laaaaa!

Anyway, George wrote:

Let me be blunt: Rand’s contextualism, as interpreted by Peikoff and his colleagues, has become virtually indistinguishable from epistemological relativism.

End quote

AAAnnn Ju Laaaaa, I don’t think George gave it a pass at all. This is going over ground from just a couple of months ago, and a few years ago, so George is free to skip the following portion of an old letter, (if he reads this at all. I tried to send him something directly to his old web address and it came back undeliverable. He may have blocked me. Ouch!) Skip the portions between the X’s George and go to the end of the post where I will beseech The Great and Wonderful Oz to do more.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Leonard Peikoff writes in “Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” on pages 120 and 175:

"Proof" is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between nonaxiomatic propositions and the facts of reality.

Many people regard logic not as a cognitive function, but as a social one; they regard it as a means of forcing other men to accept *their* arbitrary ideas. For oneself, according the this viewpoint, a farrago of unproved assertions would be satisfactory; logic, however, is necessary for polemics; it is necessary as a means of trapping opponents in internal inconsistencies and thereby of battering down one's enemy.

Objectivism rejects this approach. Proof is not a social ritual, nor is it an unworldly pursuit, a means of constructing rationalistic castles in the air. It is a personal, practical, selfish necessity of earthly cognition. Just as man would need concepts (including language) on a desert island, so he would need logic there, too. Otherwise, by the nature of human consciousness, he would be directionless and cognitively helpless . . . .

The modern definition of "absolute" represents the rejection of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. It is the inversion of a crucial truth: *relationships are not the enemy of absolutism; they are what makes it possible.* We prove a conclusion on the basis of facts logically related to it and then integrate it into the sum of our knowledge. That process is what enables us to say: "Everything points to this conclusion; the total context demands it; within these conditions, it is unshakeable." About an isolated revelation, by contrast, we would never be secure. Since we would know nothing that *makes* it so, we could count on nothing to keep it so, either.

Contextualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite. The fact of context does not weaken human conclusions or make them vulnerable to overthrow. On the contrary, context is precisely what makes a (properly specified) conclusion invulnerable."

End of quote

The quote that George H. Smith uses about blood types is from a chapter in OPAR titled, "Reason" (page 173):

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

As I mentioned, this quote is from a chapter titled "Reason" and was preceded by a chapter titled, "Objectivity," so we need to remember that Mr. Peikoff is speaking, IN CONTEXT, about the amalgamation of Epistemology and Metaphysics, that is Medical Science. Doctor Peikoff is describing how a fallible human can achieve psychological certainty and be sure that his thinking processes do correctly describe reality.

And contextualism requires a certain time frame. Contextualism requires the present, i.e., the sum total of all knowledge acquired up to the second you are reading this, and I am writing this. Perhaps it would be fair to paraphrase some more of Doctor Peikoff's sentences, to read, "On the basis of the available evidence, i.e., within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following is the proper conclusion to draw. Type ‘A' bloods are compatible. Thereafter, the individual medical scientist must continue to observe and identify; and if new information should warrant it, he or she must qualify their conclusions accordingly."

Doctor Peikoff did say the preceding paragraph. Now, I am up to the point where I somewhat agree with George. I would revise what Peikoff said in the original ‘Type A' quote:

quote

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

I would risk redundancy, CHANGE SOME VERB TENSES and say,

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth WAS immutable (NOT CAPABLE OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGE), within the context initially specified. Within the context initially specified, ‘A' bloods are, and always will be compatible, and AT THAT TIME, we WERE correct to act on that objective fact to treat our patients."

On second thought, maybe I would not use the word, ‘immutable' at all. How would you change it in the PRESENT CONTEXT, George, and now here is my note at the end 8-)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

George also wrote for the Contextualism thread on Atlantis:

I quoted Gilson in WA? in the course of developing a point about the inner logic of ideas, and how seemingly innocuous ideas have sometimes carried within themselves implications with radical potential. This is why philosophy and science have often taken unexpected turns, as the interpreters and expositors of a theory pursue implications that were not apparent to its originator and who, if he had been aware, may have disagreed or disapproved of them. In other words, ideas, like actions, have unintended and unforeseen consequences.

End quote

George, once more I ask you to write a critique of “The Ayn Rand Lexicon,” for wealth and fame. I don’t know how many copies it would sell (but just don’t have the word “anarchy” or “atheism” in the title and it might sell better.) Dissect the ideas of Rand. Improve them. Make them one hundred percent correct in the context of her entire philosophy up to 2010. And what about a critique of that little bitty book, “The Objectivist Epistemology?”

This brings up the big turning point in any philosophy. What Rand wrote was Randian Objectivism, but can David Kelley, or George H. Smith, or Leonard Peikoff also write Objectivism? Of course they can, if they are rationally correct! And if you are correct in your “fixes” you might be able to sell it thru The Atlas Society AND the Ayn Rand Institute (though I would not hold my breathe for them.)

I just bought two bio’s about Rand. There is a resurgence in interest and sales of “Atlas Shrugged.” And you George, could do as good or a better job than anyone.

Now if I could just get you to drop your religious attachment to “Competing Defense Agencies” . . . And could you please get JR to stop picking on me? 8-)

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Daniel Barnes]

What would an argument for the "logical basis" of one's "commitment to logic" even look like? The very process of explaining this "logical basis" would presuppose one's commitment to logic, would it not?

Well, yes. That is, as I understand it, the problem with what could be called an all-encompassing, or comprehensive rationality.

It seems to me that Rand aimed at exactly that sort of comprehensive rationality, in which case such a justification could fairly be asked of her. But perhaps I have got it wrong.

There are many "well-known" problems in philosophy that are more on the order of pseudo-problems.

Agreed, this may well be one of them.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[imurray]

George H. Smith recently responded to Xray. I always loved the way Tony Danza said, “Angela” to a character on the show, the same actress who later appeared on “Ugly Betty,” once again as the Mom. He kind of said, AAAnnn Ju Laaaaa!

Anyway, George wrote:

Let me be blunt: Rand’s contextualism, as interpreted by Peikoff and his colleagues, has become virtually indistinguishable from epistemological relativism.

End quote

AAAnnn Ju Laaaaa, I don’t think George gave it a pass at all. This is going over ground from just a couple of months ago, and a few years ago, so George is free to skip the following portion of an old letter, (if he reads this at all. I tried to send him something directly to his old web address and it came back undeliverable. He may have blocked me. Ouch!) Skip the portions between the X’s George and go to the end of the post where I will beseech The Great and Wonderful Oz to do more.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Leonard Peikoff writes in “Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” on pages 120 and 175:

"Proof" is the process of establishing truth by reducing a proposition to axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between nonaxiomatic propositions and the facts of reality.

Many people regard logic not as a cognitive function, but as a social one; they regard it as a means of forcing other men to accept *their* arbitrary ideas. For oneself, according the this viewpoint, a farrago of unproved assertions would be satisfactory; logic, however, is necessary for polemics; it is necessary as a means of trapping opponents in internal inconsistencies and thereby of battering down one's enemy.

Objectivism rejects this approach. Proof is not a social ritual, nor is it an unworldly pursuit, a means of constructing rationalistic castles in the air. It is a personal, practical, selfish necessity of earthly cognition. Just as man would need concepts (including language) on a desert island, so he would need logic there, too. Otherwise, by the nature of human consciousness, he would be directionless and cognitively helpless . . . .

The modern definition of "absolute" represents the rejection of a rational metaphysics and epistemology. It is the inversion of a crucial truth: *relationships are not the enemy of absolutism; they are what makes it possible.* We prove a conclusion on the basis of facts logically related to it and then integrate it into the sum of our knowledge. That process is what enables us to say: "Everything points to this conclusion; the total context demands it; within these conditions, it is unshakeable." About an isolated revelation, by contrast, we would never be secure. Since we would know nothing that *makes* it so, we could count on nothing to keep it so, either.

Contextualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite. The fact of context does not weaken human conclusions or make them vulnerable to overthrow. On the contrary, context is precisely what makes a (properly specified) conclusion invulnerable."

End of quote

The quote that George H. Smith uses about blood types is from a chapter in OPAR titled, "Reason" (page 173):

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

As I mentioned, this quote is from a chapter titled "Reason" and was preceded by a chapter titled, "Objectivity," so we need to remember that Mr. Peikoff is speaking, IN CONTEXT, about the amalgamation of Epistemology and Metaphysics, that is Medical Science. Doctor Peikoff is describing how a fallible human can achieve psychological certainty and be sure that his thinking processes do correctly describe reality.

And contextualism requires a certain time frame. Contextualism requires the present, i.e., the sum total of all knowledge acquired up to the second you are reading this, and I am writing this. Perhaps it would be fair to paraphrase some more of Doctor Peikoff's sentences, to read, "On the basis of the available evidence, i.e., within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following is the proper conclusion to draw. Type ‘A' bloods are compatible. Thereafter, the individual medical scientist must continue to observe and identify; and if new information should warrant it, he or she must qualify their conclusions accordingly."

Doctor Peikoff did say the preceding paragraph. Now, I am up to the point where I somewhat agree with George. I would revise what Peikoff said in the original ‘Type A' quote:

quote

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth is immutable. Within the context initially specified, A bloods are, and always will be compatible."

end quote

I would risk redundancy, CHANGE SOME VERB TENSES and say,

"This proposition, (that ‘A' bloods are compatible) represented real *knowledge* when it was first reached, and it still does so; in fact, like all properly formulated truths, this truth WAS immutable (NOT CAPABLE OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO CHANGE), within the context initially specified. Within the context initially specified, ‘A' bloods are, and always will be compatible, and AT THAT TIME, we WERE correct to act on that objective fact to treat our patients."

On second thought, maybe I would not use the word, ‘immutable' at all. How would you change it in the PRESENT CONTEXT, George, and now here is my note at the end 8-)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

George also wrote for the Contextualism thread on Atlantis:

I quoted Gilson in WA? in the course of developing a point about the inner logic of ideas, and how seemingly innocuous ideas have sometimes carried within themselves implications with radical potential. This is why philosophy and science have often taken unexpected turns, as the interpreters and expositors of a theory pursue implications that were not apparent to its originator and who, if he had been aware, may have disagreed or disapproved of them. In other words, ideas, like actions, have unintended and unforeseen consequences.

End quote

George, once more I ask you to write a critique of “The Ayn Rand Lexicon,” for wealth and fame. I don’t know how many copies it would sell (but just don’t have the word “anarchy” or “atheism” in the title and it might sell better.) Dissect the ideas of Rand. Improve them. Make them one hundred percent correct in the context of her entire philosophy up to 2010. And what about a critique of that little bitty book, “The Objectivist Epistemology?”

This brings up the big turning point in any philosophy. What Rand wrote was Randian Objectivism, but can David Kelley, or George H. Smith, or Leonard Peikoff also write Objectivism? Of course they can, if they are rationally correct! And if you are correct in your “fixes” you might be able to sell it thru The Atlas Society AND the Ayn Rand Institute (though I would not hold my breathe for them.)

I just bought two bio’s about Rand. There is a resurgence in interest and sales of “Atlas Shrugged.” And you George, could do as good or a better job than anyone.

Now if I could just get you to drop your religious attachment to “Competing Defense Agencies” . . . And could you please get JR to stop picking on me? 8-)

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Somebody has a special admirer.