Settling the debate on Altruism

[imurray]

Once again Altruism is used to bolster Totalitarianism and right here in America.

Peter

From a speech given to a Tea Party by Robert Tracinski:

If there's a war between these classes, between the government class and the producer class, then they started it. What is driving this war is that the government class has a contempt for producers and for wealth creation. You can see this expressed in thousands of little ways. Nancy Pelosi tried to sell the health care bill by saying how good it would be for unemployed artists: "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." So notice that these people are considered to be in nobler and more worthy professions, which should be supported by government, as opposed to those who hold productive jobs.

And then there is Michelle Obama's advice to college graduates encouraging them to "move out of the money-making industry" and "into the helping industry." So if you work for government, you're the good guys because you're "helping" people, which makes you better than those money-grubbing jerks in the private sector.

All of this goes against the grain of American history and American culture.

Your point? The guy gave a speech not unlike many other speeches in American history pointing out what he thinks are flawed ideals, which are themselves historically commonplace...this has been played out over and over again in American history so why should I be shocked? I'd say if this type of rhetoric and debate ceased then that would be something to talk about.

Do you ever have your own ideas, Peter? Or do you just quote and summarize?

Edited April 19, 2010 by Panoptic

[tjohnson]

I personally don't think it is possible to have a totalitarian state in the US - the people would rebel.

Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism.

The US does not have a state controlled media, a single party, restriction of discussion, mass surveillance and state terrorism, IMO, nor do I think it will in the near future.

[Peter]

Panoptic wrote:

Do you ever have your own ideas, Peter? Or do you just quote and summarize?

end quote

A version of that speech has been given many times sinse 1776, but what was remarkable is that Altruism has been used once more as a justification for Totalitarianism, and this time by the Marxist first lady Michelle Obama.

I hope the General is Right and that we will not succumb to the enemy of freedom. The thirty percent of Americans on some type of dole or who have government jobs would vote for BHO again.

Peter

[tjohnson]

I hope the General is Right and that we will not succumb to the enemy of freedom. The thirty percent of Americans on some type of dole or who have government jobs would vote for BHO again.

They probably would vote for him again but what does that mean? Income disparity is a huge problem. Check out this thread

http://www.rational-skepticism.org/news-politics/income-inequality-914-goes-all-in-t5346.html

People who are desperate will vote for anything if they think it will help their situation. The US has arguably had the most free market system in the world for many years and even so it has got into the current state of affairs. Now you will argue that it isn't "true" free market but why would I want more of something if it doesn't appear to be working? What about 'social democracy', that's an interesting concept. There doesn't have to be only 'socialism' vs. 'capitalism', this is a false dichotomy.

[Brant Gaede]

I hope the General is Right and that we will not succumb to the enemy of freedom. The thirty percent of Americans on some type of dole or who have government jobs would vote for BHO again.

They probably would vote for him again but what does that mean? Income disparity is a huge problem. Check out this thread

http://www.rational-...l-in-t5346.html

People who are desperate will vote for anything if they think it will help their situation. The US has arguably had the most free market system in the world for many years and even so it has got into the current state of affairs. Now you will argue that it isn't "true" free market but why would I want more of something if it doesn't appear to be working? What about 'social democracy', that's an interesting concept. There doesn't have to be only 'socialism' vs. 'capitalism', this is a false dichotomy.

Are you trying to get philosophical on us? You didn't pin the tail on the donkey here. You put it right on its nose.

--Brant

[Xray]

I wrote about Atlas Shrugged:

False thinking people with their phony ideals deserved the havoc they wreaked.

Angela with her XRAY vision replied:

This is a value judgment I don't share. For it reveals an attitude of non-empathy and revenge for those who don't happen to share one's own values . . . Imo Atlas Shrugged is basically a huge revenge phantasy put in writing.

end quote

First off, spelling fantasy with a “ph” is melodramatic.

You are reading something into my words which isn't there. For I have have no penchant whatsoever for melodrama.

My spelling "phantasy" with ph is probably influenced by my native German (where, as in English phantasy/fantasy both "Phantasie" and "Fantasie" exist, but I prefer, out of habit, the 'ph' spelling in German.)

PT: Secondly, revenge if properly applied is called, “Justice.”

I'd advise caution here. For what looks as "proper revenge" to one person can evoke sheer horror in someone else. I'm convinced that e. g. Robespierre too was of the opinion that he applied "revenge properly" when ordering people's heads to be chopped off, and that he claimed "justice" demanded it. The revolutionaries even created a "goodess of justice".

PT: Yet it was heavy reading, that part where Ayn cataloged the reasons for the train passenger’s deaths. I remember arguing this very point, with the guy who introduced me to “Atlas Shrugged,” when I was sixteen. What if some of these people are innocent? Why should they die? Of course it is artistic license to assume all are guilty, and I understood that after his explanation. And I do feel empathy for those who think wrongly and suffer the consequences, many times because the consequences are way out of proportion to the bad thinking.

It was very heavy reading. As if these people had committed a "thought crime".

Edited April 20, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

PT: Yet it was heavy reading, that part where Ayn cataloged the reasons for the train passenger's deaths. I remember arguing this very point, with the guy who introduced me to "Atlas Shrugged," when I was sixteen. What if some of these people are innocent? Why should they die? Of course it is artistic license to assume all are guilty, and I understood that after his explanation. And I do feel empathy for those who think wrongly and suffer the consequences, many times because the consequences are way out of proportion to the bad thinking.

It was very heavy reading. As if these people had committed a "thought crime".

I think Ayn Rand felt the passengers were all Russians--the Russians who had done so much damage to her home country. The world of Atlas Shrugged was generally devoid of real Americans. Maybe there were a few score left.

--Brant

Edited April 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Angela, I wish Rand had kept the dictionary versions of definitions. Since she redefined things, it’s caused some terrible misunderstandings.

Indeed it has. Classic case of a false premise is Rand's so-called "definition" of "sacrifice" (= trading a higher for a lower value).

This is no definition, but a value judgement. She presents as an "objective" definition what are merely her personal feelings and associations with a term. That is, she confuses connotation and denotation. I doubt she was even aware of the mistake she made here.

When you think how much of her argumentation she bases on that false premise - no wonder the result is chaos.

PT: From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Altruism: What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. . .

End quotes

I think Ayn saw Altruism (and not might makes right) used as the usual rationale for establishing Statist and Ultra-Nationalistic Governments AND justification for the worst atrocities of those Totalitarian Governments.

Rand attacking altruism is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

She (rightfully imo) condemns altruism as an ideology which mandates "You must serve others others first."

But in her zeal she got carried away, judging acts of serving others first as "altruistic" (i. e. condemnable in her eyes), while not seeing the self-interest of the givers behind them. I have performed many so-called "altruistic" acts in my life; not because I'm a good Samaritan, but because I simply like helping others. It creates an atmosphere of social harmony which I find agreeable. No to mention the sense of purpose I derive from voluntary sharing.

On numerous occasions, I have also given in to the interests of others, and often profited from it because I later found out theirs was the better decision. Had I insisted on my stance, I would never have made that experience.

This is what I completely miss in Rand: the natural "give and take" which is an integral part of our living together in groups. Also amazing is her blindness to the fact that people's values can change in the course of their life, and they usually change as a result of encounters and exchanges with people who have other values.

My values have changed dramatically as a result of engaging in discussions and debates with such people.

For example, it was an atheist challenging me in a debate who finally got me to check the premises of my belief. If this hadn't happened, I probably would still be a believer.

Whereas the Objectivist doctrine only seems to allow people into an Objectivist's life who share the same values. Just read how intolerant N. Branden sounds in his essay "The Psychology of Pleasure". I found it difficult to believe he was serious when I read it for the first time. But he meant it of course.

I personally would find it uninspiring to interact only with people who share one's own values.

PT: The dictionary version does not sound so malevolent, but go to the creative writing section and read David Lee’s “Charity.” That will creep you out on “The Good Nuns” forever.

I just took a look. "Charity" was obviously an attempt by the writer to emulate Rand in creating yet another altruist strawman and imo Charity is as unconvincing as those created by Rand. The "altruistic subjectivists" in her novels are so far removed from reality that they border on the comical.

As for being creeped out on "The Good Nuns" -

I'm not that easily creeped out. If I were, I would not have been able to attend a Catholic nun's school for seven years.

But frankly, John Galt has creeped me out more than the 'creepier' exemplars I have encountered in that institution. I found that stalking 'Big Brother is Watching You' type John Galt just plain uncanny.

Roark is creepy as well. In committing rape and feeling entitled to dynamite a building because it was not built the way he intended it to be, he shows a psychopath's characteristic lack of empathy.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Angela, I wish Rand had kept the dictionary versions of definitions. Since she redefined things, it’s caused some terrible misunderstandings.

Indeed it has. Classic case of a false premise is Rand's so-called "definition" of "sacrifice" (= trading a higher for a lower value).

This is no definition, but a value judgement. She presents as an "objective" definition what are merely her personal feelings and associations with a term. That is, she confuses connotation and denotation. I doubt she was even aware of the mistake she made here.

[imurray]

Angela, I wish Rand had kept the dictionary versions of definitions. Since she redefined things, it’s caused some terrible misunderstandings.

Indeed it has. Classic case of a false premise is Rand's so-called "definition" of "sacrifice" (= trading a higher for a lower value).

This is no definition, but a value judgement. She presents as an "objective" definition what are merely her personal feelings and associations with a term. That is, she confuses connotation and denotation. I doubt she was even aware of the mistake she made here.

Xray:

I sound like a broken record, but I'd like to once again point out that philosophers often use different meanings for common words - these are not connotative of denotative definitions, but technical. The only real problem occurs when the propriety of a term is violated within the context of the system itself without an acknowledgement.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Panoptic

[Peter]

I am sorry for not writing sooner, I was busy, chasing away dragons, and I am sorry this letter is a bit long. It took a while to compose.

Xray wrote:

Rand attacking altruism is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater . . . She (rightfully imo) condemns altruism as an ideology which mandates "You must serve others first." But in her zeal she got carried away, judging acts as "altruistic" i.e., condemnable in her eyes, while not seeing the self-interest of the givers behind them. I have performed many so-called altruistic acts in my life, not because I'm a good Samaritan, but because I simply like helping others. It creates an atmosphere of social harmony which I find agreeable . . . It also gives me a sense of purpose.

End quote

I like your clarity Angela. What you are calling *altruism* Rand and I would call *benevolence.* You are very close to a breakthrough. In fact you may have already done so as I write this.

Remember Rand said:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

End of quote from “The Ayn Rand Lexicon.”

Now for some history. Let’s get into the “Way-Back Machine” Ms German (I will stand back as you hop in and not peek) and return to the early sixties.

From “Goddess of the Market, Ayn Rand and the American Right” by Jennifer Burns pages 192 and 193.

Rand’s first published work of nonfiction, For the New Intellectual, set worth the creed her young fans would follow in the coming decades. Most of the book consisted of excerpts from Rand’s already published fiction, except for the title essay, which called for a cadre of “New Intellectuals” who would work together with business to celebrate the achievements of industrialism and capitalism. In the essay Rand identified three categories of men who had clashed throughout history: Atillas (despotic rulers), Witch Doctors (priests and intellectuals), and Producers (spiritual forerunners of American businessmen). The first two terms, she noticed, had been coined by Nathaniel Branden, whom she formally thanked for his “eloquent designation.” She traced their conflicts through Western history until the Industrial Revolution, when two new social types were born: the modern businessman and the modern intellectual. According to Rand, the two were supposed to work in tandem to manage, direct, and explain the changes stemming from the Industrial Revolution. But intellectuals had committed “treason” in the face of this grave responsibility, choosing instead to hold down Producers by promoting altruism as an ethical imperative.

Rand’s essay mixed history, philosophy, and polemic into a bewitching brew while her typologies bore a clear resemblance to traditional divisions between proletariat, capitalists, and revolutionary vanguard, she centered these differences in mental outlook, not economic position. Producers were different from Witch Doctors and Atillas because they were independent and rational rather than mystical. Even though she avoided the language of economic determinism, Rand saw history as a kind of spiritialized class struggle. She took readers on a rapid tour of Western intellectual history, quickly summarizing and critiquing several major schools of philosophy.

Rand then paused to clarify her most misunderstood and controversial idea, her attack upon altruism, or “moral cannibalism,” as she liked to call it. She explained that she used the word as did the French philosopher August Compte, to mean “self-sacrifice.” This usage was philosophically precise, but potentially very confusing. Most of Rand’s critics took the word in the more colloquial sense, as broadly meaning concern for or caring about other people. This meant that Rand seemed to be attacking even goodness itself. Once again, as she had with selfishness, Rand was redefining words to match her philosophical concepts. It was not, she thought, her fault that she was sometimes misunderstood, and in any even she relished her iconoclastic persona. If her audience thought she was violating all standards of human decency, so much the better.

Rand presented herself as a serious philosophical thinker and analyst of American history, but could not fully escape her innate penchant for provocation and emotional invective. Her high-minded discussion of philosophy was punctured by colorful and occasionally bizarre metaphors. She described contemporary intellectual discourse as “a sticky puddle of stale syrup” and referred to “chickens hiding their heads in the sand (“ostrich” is to big and dignified a metaphor for this instance).” Still, she effectively charged her readers with a world-historical-task: her New Intellectuals must challenge and replace the left-leaning supporters of socialism and the welfare state.

End quote

It is easy to detect that Jennifer Burns is not an Objectivist by her use of the word, “creed” to describe Rand’s philosophy.

Well, now we know. Rand’s recasting the typical definitions, such as for altruism, with ones she approved of, was deliberate. She was intentionally provocative.

Xray wrote:

I found that stalking 'Big Brother is Watching You' type John Galt just plain uncanny.

End quote

Just as we are asked to accept that when Howard Roark “raped” Dominique it was “by engraved invitation,” AND we are required to suspend our disbelief and accept as true, the omniscient narrator who lists the fatal flaws of a trainload of people going to their deaths *through every fault of their own,* SO we must also accept that in “Atlas Shrugged,” Dagny’s sense of a *benevolent universe.* This is creative writing after all. In fact this is a genius writing creatively.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[anthony]

Peter Taylor writes "What you are calling *altruism*, Rand and I would call *benevolence*."

Well said, Peter.

Xray,

Isn't this the kernel of your 'issue' with selfishness?

Can't you appreciate that Ayn Rand presupposed that a rational being - and especially a rational being - has not lost his fundamental humanity.

And whether or not you can point to her novels for signs of extreme ego(t)ism, Objectivism as philosophy, to my mind, supplies a rational evolution upon the basic structure of what one may call, "a good man." The finer the feelings and character of this man, the more evolved he can be as Objectivist, I believe.

BTW, I do think that for someone as apparently well read as yourself, you view her novels in the most literalist manner. "Psychopaths", "stalkers", and "rapists" abound... where the rest of us see plot, characterisation, and most critically, over-all theme and message. Dammit, it's fiction - and Rand well knew the efficacy of shock tactics.

Maybe some of that "sympathetic" treatment that Ghs advised elsewhere, wouldn't go amiss.

Tony

[Xray]

Brant Gaede:I think Ayn Rand felt the passengers were all Russians--the Russians who had done so much damage to her home country. The world of Atlas Shrugged was generally devoid of real Americans.

Well put. Imo Rand was so appalled by the damage Russian ideologists had done to her family that she couldn't bear the thought of any kind of altruism, which she automatically associated it with having to 'sacrifice' oneself.

This rigidity of her thinking could bear no shades of gray, only black and white.

The non-acknowledging of shades of gray, the not-allowing the existence of a "both ... and", but only an "either ... or" is characterisitic of ideologists.

Ayn Rand was no less an ideologist than those she fought against.

Xray:

I sound like a broken record, but I'd like to once again point out that philosophers often use different meanings for common words - these are not connotative of denotative definitions, but technical.

It is important to separate technical terms used in philosophy (like e.g. a priori) from the attaching of different meanings to common words, which is always a connotative act.

The problems arise when such associations are not identified as connotative, but mistaken for an actual definition.

Take the term "sacrifice" for example: without doubt, Rand was convinced that her "definition" of sacrifice was the correct one.

But to define "sacrifice" as 'trading a higher for a lower value' is incorrect.

Panoptic:The only real problem occurs when the propriety of a term is violated within the context of the system itself without an acknowledgement.

That's another real problem one has when going through Rand's texts: She is inconsistent even within the context of her own work. Typical example is her confused elaboration on the term "value". She states that were no choice exists, no values are possible, and then speaks of value-seeking plants.

Peter Taylor: I like your clarity Angela. What you are calling *altruism* Rand and I would call *benevolence.* You are very close to a breakthrough. In fact you may have already done so as I write this.

Remember Rand said:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

End of quote from “The Ayn Rand Lexicon.”

I'm afraid the opposite is the case, Peter: that Rand would condemn acts as "altruistic" what I would call "benevolent", like for example, what the Starnes in AS did. I found them truly concerned for the well-being of others.

I think Rand also would have been outraged in case someone had told her that he/she considered is as their personal duty to help those who live in destitute condition.

I often feel this kind of duty and have acted upon it, within the scope of my limited possibilities. No one ever "mandated" me this duty - I myself did.

I neither feel I'm 'sacrificing' myself, nor 'self-abnegating', or anything else on Rand's list above.

You quoted from J. Burns:"Still, she effectively charged her readers with a world-historical-task: her New Intellectuals must challenge and replace the left-leaning supporters of socialism and the welfare state". (JB)

PT: It is easy to detect that Jennifer Burns is not an Objectivist by her use of the word, “creed” to describe Rand’s philosophy.

Do you think the term "creed" is an apt choice? If yes, why? If not, why not?

PT: Well, now we know. Rand’s recasting the typical definitions, such as for altruism, with ones she approved of, was deliberate. She was intentionally provocative.

Indeed she was intentionally provocative, being the ideologist she was. I believe Rand wrote ITOE mainly to bolster the 'correctness' of her ideological thinking.

Do you (or others) know if Ayn Rand has ever been directly asked whether she considered herself as an ideologist?

PT: Just as we are asked to accept that when Howard Roark “raped” Dominique it was “by engraved invitation,” AND we are required to suspend our disbelief and accept as true, the omniscient narrator who lists the fatal flaws of a trainload of people going to their deaths *through every fault of their own,* SO we must also accept that in “Atlas Shrugged,” Dagny’s sense of a *benevolent universe.* This is creative writing after all. In fact this is a genius writing creatively.

"Accept" (I would use the word 'realize' here) does not imply "approve".

It is creative fictional writing by means of which Rand gives us revealing insights into her psychological universe.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Brant Gaede:I think Ayn Rand felt the passengers were all Russians--the Russians who had done so much damage to her home country. The world of Atlas Shrugged was generally devoid of real Americans.

Well put. Imo Rand was so appalled by the damage Russian ideologists had done to her family that she couldn't bear the thought of any kind of altruism, which she automatically associated it with having to 'sacrifice' oneself.

This rigidity of her thinking could bear no shades of gray, only black and white.

The non-acknowledging of shades of gray, the not-allowing the existence of a "both ... and", but only an "either ... or" is characterisitic of ideologists.

Ayn Rand was no less an ideologist than those she fought against.

You're assuming too much about Ayn Rand here. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Lysenko and Rand? Ayn Rand lived the life of the mind. Those other guys lived and ruined others' lives on a massive scale. They were ideologists par excellence. Ayn Rand has helped countless by affirming their lives belong to them by right and that they could stand up for themselves against any form of altruistic collectivism. Altruism is the morality of any collectivism while rational self interest and the pursuit of happiness is the morality of individualism, human freedom and essential dignity and grace.

--Brant

humanist

Edited April 29, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Peter]

I wrote that the author Jennifer Burns called Objectivism a creed and Xray responded:

Do you think the term "creed" is an apt choice? If yes, why? If not, why not?

end quote

A creed refers to a religion. Even if an outside observer, who considered “the collective” (those who were in her inner circle, most of whom were true students of Objectivism,”) as a “cult” that is still short of a religion. Everyone who greatly admired her and had access to Ayn curried her favor.

I think all were afraid to offend her, with a capital, HER, and not afraid of violating some tenet of their new philosophy, Objectivism. Not deities, not inner Thetans, or the gods – rather, they feared Ayn Rand as a force of nature. Second-Handers need not apply to Objectivism. You must think for yourself, and that placed Ayn’s personality, that demanded obedience and accolades, on a collision course with everyone who studied and approved of her philosophy.

She rocked my world. Ayn has rocked millions of people’s worlds. I would have liked to have been able to knock on her door and be admitted to her apartment to discuss philosophy.

Xray wrote:

Indeed she was intentionally provocative, being the ideologist she was. I believe Rand wrote ITOE mainly to bolster the 'correctness' of her ideological thinking. Do you (or others) know if Ayn Rand has ever been directly asked whether she considered herself as an ideologist?

I agree that she redefined things to suit her philosophy. For example, if the dictionary definition says Altruism is what is exhibited by mammalian mothers as regards their young, then she rejected that portion of the definition. Why? Because Altruism had been explicitly been used as a justification for Christianity, the Welfare State after America’s President Roosevelt, Marxism, and Fascism. So she was out to get IT.

According to Objectivism, if you Angela, are benevolent towards others that would be a virtue, if you are not sacrificing your own family and productive potential. As portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, the Starnes were psychological parasites living on the misery of others.

Brant wrote:

Ayn Rand has helped countless by affirming their lives belong to them by right and that they could stand up for themselves against any form of altruistic collectivism. Altruism is the morality of any collectivism while rational self interest and the pursuit of happiness is the morality of individualism, human freedom and essential dignity and grace.

End quote

Well said, Brant.

Was she an Ideologue? Of course, but not like Lenin or Trotsky. Her philosophy is based on reality, not some unobtainable, Platonic ideal. It is intentionally based on what can be achieved by volitionally thinking, productive humans.

I wrote:

Just as we are asked to accept that when Howard Roark “raped” Dominique it was “by engraved invitation,” AND we are required to suspend our disbelief and accept as true, the omniscient narrator who lists the fatal flaws of a trainload of people going to their deaths *through every fault of their own,* SO we must also accept that in “Atlas Shrugged,” Dagny’s sense of a *benevolent universe.* This is creative writing after all. In fact this is a genius writing creatively.

Xray replied:

"Accept" (I would use the word 'realize' here) does not imply approve. It is fiction by means of which Rand gives us revealing insights into her psychological universe.

End quote

If Ayn in real life were being spied upon she would have “whopped the peeker upside the head” or called the cops (certainly at some point in her life, after an unromantic menopause.) Now, I can only speak for myself, but what if the “person intent on watching you” were a good looking person that intrigued you? Darn it, I saw that person recently. Are they putting themselves in my path so that we might meet? Now, that is a romantic, and intriguing hypotheses for a “benevolent universe.” Would you fear them or avoid them if you were single and they were good looking and you were “looking?” I think romanticism and evolution would win out.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[dan2100]

It is creative fictional writing by means of which Rand gives us revealing insights into her psychological universe.

I'd be very careful about using art as a psychological tool or about reading art works as pieces of psychological biography. This isn't to say they reveal nothing or can be of no service in understanding the artist behind them, but I'd be cautious about what they reveal.

[imurray]

It is important to separate technical terms used in philosophy (like e.g. a priori) from the attaching of different meanings to common words, which is always a connotative act.

The problems arise when such associations are not identified as connotative, but mistaken for an actual definition.

Take the term "sacrifice" for example: without doubt, Rand was convinced that her "definition" of sacrifice was the correct one.

But to define "sacrifice" as 'trading a higher for a lower value' is incorrect.

Xray,

I disagree. Philosophers do this all the time out of necessity - they just can't go around inventing new words all the time. Here are just a few examples: Kierkegaard's use of "anxiety", "despair", "faith", "absurd", etc.; Heidegger's use of "authentic" and "inauthentic", "equipment", "being", "temporality", etc.; Nietzsche's use of "morality", "genealogy", "power", etc.; Wittgenstein's use of "grammar"; Foucault's use of "archaeology", "archive", "culture", "technology", etc. Not to mention all the other terms commonly used in philosophy: "truth", "reality", "identity", etc. And not to mention all the various translations of these words - as you well know, not all of these words translate easily from one language to another. I understand Rand wrote in English, but perhaps there was a Russian word better suited, but "sacrifice" was the closest word in English? I don't know, but I do know that happens - one example is that most of Foucault's translators retain "lange" and "parole" because there are no suitable English equivalents.

Sure there are words like "a priori" that are part of the universal jargon of philosophy, but that's not a good analogy. Really, what separates one philosophy from another are nuanced definition of common terms! If everyone agreed on an absolute definition for each word then we wouldn't have anything to argue about (disputes over what is truth, reality, self, identity, knowledge, time, etc. would all be settled if we all agreed to a universal definition for these words). Words are like tools - you reach for the best one for the job, but sometimes it isn't exactly what you need, so you improvise a little. Within the context of a philosophy the meaning given by the author is the "real" definition, your problem is that you insist on arguing that the author is somehow confused or deliberately trying to confuse others. That's more than likely not the case - most take great pains in defining their terms. You need to use their definitions if you want to understand their philosophy; if not it is YOU who is using the "wrong" definition not them.

Also they're called "technical" definitions, not "connotative" definitions since the definitions are usually very specific and constitute the PRIMARY definitions within the context of a particular philosophical treatise. You wouldn't argue that biologists are using "sympathetic" wrong in "sympathetic system" and insist that it must mean something else - would you? My advice is either to use her definition or if you just can't get past it, use a word instead of "sacrifice" when you come across it in her writing - call it "arcoplastiopterice" instead. It doesn't really matter which word you use - it's the meaning that counts and she has defined it as well as one could expect (although the overarching concept itself is not unambiguous - that I'd agree with).

In other words, who cares if "sacrifice" is the wrong word? All that matters is the meaning she's clearly assigned to it. Sacrifice, as DEFINED BY RAND, IS trading a higher value for a lower value. That is the correct, technical, definition within the context of her work. You can make an argument that she should have used a different word with a standard definition that fits closer to her meaning, but that's not an argument against her philosophy - only against her choice of words.

Practically any guide to writing a technical work (like a thesis) will give you this advice (this is from http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.dissertation.html):

1. Each technical term used in a dissertation must be defined either by a reference to a previously published definition (for standard terms with their usual meaning) or by a precise, unambiguous definition that appears before the term is used (for a new term or a standard term used in an unusual way).

2. Each term should be used in one and only one way throughout the dissertation.

3. The easiest way to avoid a long series of definitions is to include a statement: ``the terminology used throughout this document follows that given in [CITATION].'' Then, only define exceptions.

Ok, this is frustrating me lol. Sorry for the sharp tone of the email, grammar, and spelling, but I'm firing this off quick.

Ian

Edited April 30, 2010 by Panoptic

[tjohnson]

Also they're called "technical" definitions, not "connotative" definitions since the definitions are usually very specific and constitute the PRIMARY definitions within the context of a particular philosophical treatise. You wouldn't argue that biologist's are using "sympathetic" wrong in "sympathetic system" and insist that it must mean something else - would you? My advice is either to use her definition or if you just can't get past it, use a word instead of "sacrifice" when you come across it in her writing - call it "arcoplastiopterice" instead. It doesn't really matter which word you use - it's the meaning that counts and she has defined it as well as one could expect (although the overarching concept itself is not unambiguous - that I'd agree with).

Very good advice! I do this with Rands use of 'morality' which I take to mean 'rationality' because she uses it in a non-standard way;

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

I take this to mean that if you don't use your head (rationality) you will die when left to you own devices but she calls this 'morality'.

[imurray]

Also they're called "technical" definitions, not "connotative" definitions since the definitions are usually very specific and constitute the PRIMARY definitions within the context of a particular philosophical treatise. You wouldn't argue that biologist's are using "sympathetic" wrong in "sympathetic system" and insist that it must mean something else - would you? My advice is either to use her definition or if you just can't get past it, use a word instead of "sacrifice" when you come across it in her writing - call it "arcoplastiopterice" instead. It doesn't really matter which word you use - it's the meaning that counts and she has defined it as well as one could expect (although the overarching concept itself is not unambiguous - that I'd agree with).

Very good advice! I do this with Rands use of 'morality' which I take to mean 'rationality' because she uses it in a non-standard way;

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

I take this to mean that if you don't use your head (rationality) you will die when left to you own devices but she calls this 'morality'.

I noticed that too. The more I read by Rand, the more I'm convinced that rationality and morality (as she conceives of them) are interchangeable as acting rationality is acting morally as acting morally is acting rationally.

[anthony]

Panoptic,

If it takes "frustration" to make your point, you should use it more often, IMO

Coming from your background in philosophy, I've been interested in your conclusions about Objectivist ethics, and I'd like to hear more.

At least you have put to bed the 'definition stumbling- block', and the way is open to move on (after 50 pages) to discussion of the concepts, themselves.

I agree - the least one can do in appraising a philosopher's work is to consider it by their own meaning and definition. I have grown attached to Ghs's "sympathy" hypothesis; in judging Rand, sympathy would have been the last thing she desired, but she would have insisted upon justice, objectivity, and a clear (not open!) mind, I believe.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

I noticed that too. The more I read by Rand, the more I'm convinced that rationality and morality (as she conceives of them) are interchangeable as acting rationality is acting morally as acting morally is acting rationally.

I think this is essentially correct, though some qualifications would be needed to make it completely accurate. Rationality, for Rand, is a broader concept than morality. Morality is practical rationality (in the Aristotelian sense); i.e., it is rationality applied to purposeful human action.

I cannot argue the point here, but I have long believed that Rand is a thorough-going ethical naturalist. This means that all of her normative (prescriptive) judgments can ultimately be reduced to non-normative (descriptive) propositions without loss of meaning.

Of course, philosophers have formulated various objections to ethical naturalism -- e.g., G.E. Moore's famous "naturalistic fallacy" -- but, then, philosophers have criticized every conceivable approach to ethical theory, so this doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I discussed some aspects of this problem in the early 1970s in "Objectivism as a Religion." My discussion does not specifically address Rand's ethical naturalism, but it comes close. The relevant part of my article can be found at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041217135645/www.dailyobjectivist.com/Spir/ObjectivismasaReligion5.asp

Ghs

[Xray]

It is important to separate technical terms used in philosophy (like e.g. a priori) from the attaching of different meanings to common words, which is always a connotative act.

The problems arise when such associations are not identified as connotative, but mistaken for an actual definition.

Take the term "sacrifice" for example: without doubt, Rand was convinced that her "definition" of sacrifice was the correct one.

But to define "sacrifice" as 'trading a higher for a lower value' is incorrect.

Xray,

I disagree. Philosophers do this all the time out of necessity - they just can't go around inventing new words all the time. Here are just a few examples: Kierkegaard's use of "anxiety", "despair", "faith", "absurd", etc.; Heidegger's use of "authentic" and "inauthentic", "equipment", "being", "temporality", etc.; Nietzsche's use of "morality", "genealogy", "power", etc.; Wittgenstein's use of "grammar"; Foucault's use of "archaeology", "archive", "culture", "technology", etc.

Not to mention all the other terms commonly used in philosophy: "truth", "reality", "identity", etc.

...

Panoptic,

Good point about this often being born out of necessity. I had not not taken this aspect into account enough.

It is true that philosophers can basically fill those already existing terms with whatever meaning suits them, and as long as they don't claim their definitions to be the sole "correct" ones, no harm done. The issue is anyway to cut through it all and expose the root premise(s) on which their thinking is based. Always go for the premises and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

Cutting through it is often difficult especially with those who write in a 'foggy' style, and are unsystematic.

ITA with George H. Smith who wrote on another thread:

George H. Smith: Nevertheless, if someone plunks down money for a book, I think a writer is obliged to express himself as clearly as he possibly can. It is for this reason that I have a highly negative reactions to books on philosophy that, whatever their content may be, are written in a stream--of-consciousness style -- as if any and every thought that occurs to a thinker is so precious that it deserves to be immortalized on the printed page so readers can marvel at a brilliant mind at work. What pretentious bunk this usually is.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8291&st=320 # 328

Once the premises are exposed, having to plough through the whole thing is often no longer necessary.

To get back to the "definition" issue: since definition was a central theme of Rand's thinking, I don't think she would have agreed with with WhyNot here who wrote:

WhyNot: At least you have put to bed the 'definition stumbling- block', and the way is open to move on (after 50 pages) to discussion of the concepts, themselves.

The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions. (Rand, ITOE, p. 65)

So there was definitely a claim on Rand's part regarding "truth" or "falsehood" of definitions, which allows the inference that she she thought her definitions were the "correct" ones, the "true" ones.

"To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions" (ITOE, p. 67)

Here it is again: the "correct" definition claim.

"The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts" (ITOE, p. 52)

Let's put it to the test and take look at a very simple definition task (defining "table") and read Rand's definition:

"For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”)" (ITOE, p. 53)

Rand did not meet her own criteria. This is no definition of table since it could also be applied to a shelf with supports.

It is no definition since it does not fulfill the required purpose of distinguishing a concept from all other concepts.

P: Not to mention all the other terms commonly used in philosophy: "truth", "reality", "identity", etc. And not to mention all the various translations of these words - as you well know, not all of these words translate easily from one language to another. I understand Rand wrote in English, but perhaps there was a Russian word better suited, but "sacrifice" was the closest word in English? I don't know, but I do know that happens - one example is that most of Foucault's translators retain "lange" and "parole" because there are no suitable English equivalents.

I suppose the translator retained "Langue" and "parole" because they are technical linguistic terms, originally coined by Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of modern linguistics.

Btw, what Rand called "concept", Saussure called "signifié", i. e. the idea evoked by the arbitrary sound/visual pattern ("signifiant").

P: You need to use their definitions if you want to understand their philosophy; if not it is YOU who is using the "wrong" definition not them.

The question is if there exists such a thing as a "wrong" definition. Either it is a definition or it is not.

For example, it I told you the definition of "fork" is "a round object soccer players use to score goals", this is not a "wrong definition" - it is simply no definition of the term 'fork'.

P: Within the context of a philosophy the meaning given by the author is the "real" definition, your problem is that you insist on arguing that the author is somehow confused or deliberately trying to confuse others. That's more than likely not the case - most take great pains in defining their terms. You need to use their definitions if you want to understand their philosophy; if not it is YOU who is using the "wrong" definition not them.

Calling it "interpretation" instead of "definition" would fit it better imo.

P: Really, what separates one philosophy from another are nuanced definition of common terms! If everyone agreed on an absolute definition for each word then we wouldn't have anything to argue about (disputes over what is truth, reality, self, identity, knowledge, time, etc. would all be settled if we all agreed to a universal definition for these words).

...

You wouldn't argue that biologists are using "sympathetic" wrong in "sympathetic system" and insist that it must mean something else - would you?

No, because those definition are are unmistakeably clear in that biologists have agreed upon using this specific term in this specific context. That is, we don't have other biologists battling over the use of the term in that context, or aribtrarily using another term.

P: My advice is either to use her definition or if you just can't get past it, use a word instead of "sacrifice" when you come across it in her writing - call it "arcoplastiopterice" instead. It doesn't really matter which word you use - it's the meaning that counts and she has defined it as well as one could expect (although the overarching concept itself is not unambiguous - that I'd agree with).

I have no problem in leaving the confusing term sacrifice aside. I could as well use the acronym "Trahifalova" for "trading a higher for a lower value".

Problem is: what IS the "higher" and "lower" value? Lower value from whose perspective? Suppose Paris Hilton suddenly gives all her money to the poor and then leads a life of spiritual contemplation in the Himlaya, is it possible to objectively decide which is the lower value? It is not.

Which leads to the question "How "objective" is "Objectivism" and straight to the root premise on which it is based: "objective" value implying "objective" morality.

P: Sorry for the sharp tone of the email, grammar, and spelling, but I'm firing this off quick.

No problem on my part, Panoptic. You have clearly stated your opinion and remained polite. I'm also impressed by your preciseness, analytic ability and willingness to address issues in detail.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Xray,

I disagree. Philosophers do this all the time out of necessity - they just can't go around inventing new words all the time. Here are just a few examples: Kierkegaard's use of "anxiety", "despair", "faith", "absurd", etc.; Heidegger's use of "authentic" and "inauthentic", "equipment", "being", "temporality", etc.; Nietzsche's use of "morality", "genealogy", "power", etc.; Wittgenstein's use of "grammar"; Foucault's use of "archaeology", "archive", "culture", "technology", etc. Not to mention all the other terms commonly used in philosophy: "truth", "reality", "identity", etc. And not to mention all the various translations of these words - as you well know, not all of these words translate easily from one language to another. I understand Rand wrote in English, but perhaps there was a Russian word better suited, but "sacrifice" was the closest word in English? I don't know, but I do know that happens - one example is that most of Foucault's translators retain "lange" and "parole" because there are no suitable English equivalents.

Sure there are words like "a priori" that are part of the universal jargon of philosophy, but that's not a good analogy. Really, what separates one philosophy from another are nuanced definition of common terms! If everyone agreed on an absolute definition for each word then we wouldn't have anything to argue about (disputes over what is truth, reality, self, identity, knowledge, time, etc. would all be settled if we all agreed to a universal definition for these words). Words are like tools - you reach for the best one for the job, but sometimes it isn't exactly what you need, so you improvise a little. Within the context of a philosophy the meaning given by the author is the "real" definition, your problem is that you insist on arguing that the author is somehow confused or deliberately trying to confuse others. That's more than likely not the case - most take great pains in defining their terms. You need to use their definitions if you want to understand their philosophy; if not it is YOU who is using the "wrong" definition not them.

Also they're called "technical" definitions, not "connotative" definitions since the definitions are usually very specific and constitute the PRIMARY definitions within the context of a particular philosophical treatise. You wouldn't argue that biologists are using "sympathetic" wrong in "sympathetic system" and insist that it must mean something else - would you? My advice is either to use her definition or if you just can't get past it, use a word instead of "sacrifice" when you come across it in her writing - call it "arcoplastiopterice" instead. It doesn't really matter which word you use - it's the meaning that counts and she has defined it as well as one could expect (although the overarching concept itself is not unambiguous - that I'd agree with).

In other words, who cares if "sacrifice" is the wrong word? All that matters is the meaning she's clearly assigned to it. Sacrifice, as DEFINED BY RAND, IS trading a higher value for a lower value. That is the correct, technical, definition within the context of her work. You can make an argument that she should have used a different word with a standard definition that fits closer to her meaning, but that's not an argument against her philosophy - only against her choice of words.

Practically any guide to writing a technical work (like a thesis) will give you this advice (this is from http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.dissertation.html):

1. Each technical term used in a dissertation must be defined either by a reference to a previously published definition (for standard terms with their usual meaning) or by a precise, unambiguous definition that appears before the term is used (for a new term or a standard term used in an unusual way).

2. Each term should be used in one and only one way throughout the dissertation.

3. The easiest way to avoid a long series of definitions is to include a statement: ``the terminology used throughout this document follows that given in [CITATION].'' Then, only define exceptions.

Ok, this is frustrating me lol. Sorry for the sharp tone of the email, grammar, and spelling, but I'm firing this off quick.

Ian

This is very well put, and I agree with you completely.

Ghs

[Xray]

I noticed that too. The more I read by Rand, the more I'm convinced that rationality and morality (as she conceives of them) are interchangeable as acting rationality is acting morally as acting morally is acting rationally.

I think this is essentially correct, though some qualifications would be needed to make it completely accurate. Rationality, for Rand, is a broader concept than morality. Morality is practical rationality (in the Aristotelian sense); i.e., it is rationality applied to purposeful human action.

I cannot argue the point here, but I have long believed that Rand is a thorough-going ethical naturalist. This means that all of her normative (prescriptive) judgments can ultimately be reduced to non-normative (descriptive) propositions without loss of meaning.

Could you provide, for illustration purposes, an example of a "normative prescriptive judgment" by Rand which can be ultimately reduced to a "non-normative descriptive proposition without loss of meaning".

Regarding morality: do you agree with Rand's definition?

Rand: "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (TVOS, p.13)

If yes, then this implies all kinds of moral codes of values out there, since they all have the purpose of "guiding man's choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life."

Rand: "The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?" (TVOS, p.13)

A redundant question imo. For all human individuals or groups (possessing the mental capacity to attribute value to this or that) have values. We are "qua man", valuing, goal-seeking entities. Suppose a philosopher makes a visit to a rain forest tribe to tell the chief that "man needs values", you bet the chief will reply that he and his tribe already have them.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Xray

[Daniel Barnes]

But to define "sacrifice" as 'trading a higher for a lower value' is incorrect.

Xray, in criticising Rand's verbalist arguments, one must be careful not to fall inadvertently into the same error. Rand believed in "true" and "false" meanings (or "correct" and "incorrect" if you like) of words as fundamental to the truth or falsity of our knowledge, with these definitions supposedly decidable by logic (ITOE, p46). This is a Randian howler, yes, but it also means you can't then appeal to it as a criticism of her choice of words.

Rand is free to use words however she pleases. What should be criticised are the consequences of her choices - for example, does it needlessly confuse people? Does it permit a "bait-and-switch" argument? To my mind it obviously does - witness how Rand doesn't appear to even understand her own example of the hat "sacrifice" discussed earlier.

This seems to be the most potent line of criticism.

I disagree. Philosophers do this all the time out of necessity - they just can't go around inventing new words all the time. Here are just a few examples: Kierkegaard's use of "anxiety", "despair", "faith", "absurd", etc.; Heidegger's use of "authentic" and "inauthentic", "equipment", "being", "temporality", etc.; Nietzsche's use of "morality", "genealogy", "power", etc.; Wittgenstein's use of "grammar"; Foucault's use of "archaeology", "archive", "culture", "technology", etc. Not to mention all the other terms commonly used in philosophy: "truth", "reality", "identity", etc. And not to mention all the various translations of these words - as you well know, not all of these words translate easily from one language to another. I understand Rand wrote in English, but perhaps there was a Russian word better suited, but "sacrifice" was the closest word in English? I don't know, but I do know that happens - one example is that most of Foucault's translators retain "lange" and "parole" because there are no suitable English equivalents.

Now I think Panoptic misses the point with this comment. While undoubtedly there are wide differences in meaning in the above I don't think in any the author means the opposite meaning to the common senses of the word, as Rand does with "sacrifice". For example, by "archaelogy" I don't think Foucault means taking ancient remains and burying them underground. In fact he uses the term in a pretty standard way. Further, most of the above didn't write in English, so they can hardly be responsible for what is lost in translation. In contrast, Rand wrote nearly everything in English - and is regularly credited by her followers, not to mention herself, with a clarity and precision lacking from "other philosophers". So the responsibility for making befuddled arguments based on highly misleading terminology clearly rests far more with her than with the others cited.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Daniel Barnes