Objectivism and Rage


Barbara Branden

Recommended Posts

Michael,

As to this: There is another huge premise that needs checking that runs parallel to this: that philosophy is the sole major element governing human history. The more I study man, the more I see things like herding, social hierarchies and other elements as equally strong governing influences. In my present view, philosophy is not THE OINLY fundamental influence. It is ONE OF SEVERAL major fundamental influences.

This topic sounds very, very interesting and, as a separate topic, it might be a good idea if it had its own thread. I have also done a great deal of thinking about this, as you have it seems. A different thread? What do you think?

Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I don't think you are an enemy of Kelley at all. I do think you exhibit more familiarity with "Fact and Value" than with "Truth and Toleration." Incidentally, you can get a free PDF version from TAS of the Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand in the David Kelley Corner, but I gave the link here anyway. ("Contested Legacy" is what "Truth and Toleration" became when it grew up.)

As I dug the book out, here is a direct quote from the 1990 Introduction:

The most important single issue in this debate concerns the distinction I drew between error and evil. In "A Question of Sanction," I observed that, "Truth or falsity is the essential property of an idea," a property it has inherently in virtue of its content. An idea can be evaluated good or evil only in relation to some action: either its consequence, the action it leads someone to take; or its cause, the mental action that produced the idea.

He's talking about results and intentions - these can be evil, not the idea itself. The idea itself is either correct or incorrect. Incidentally, this sounds a great deal like how criminal justice works. You need evidence (results) and a motive (intention) to condemn a person (evil).

As a humorous aside, he wrote about our dear professors in Chapter III: Error and Evil, "Inherently Dishonest Ideas":

Anyone who sojourns even briefly in the academic world will have frequent occasion to hold his nose.

I haven't read this book in its entirety and I think I will take the time to do so. It's short and well worth the effort.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I think I'll read David K's book and re-read Peikoff's Fact and Value. It's been a few years since I last read it. That way we'll have a common ground to sort things out. As it stands now, I think we're coming at the issue having different premises.

Let me, though, still ask this: Obviously you can’t jump into another person’s mind to see HOW they hold an idea to make an ethical evaluation of that person. It’s only when that person’s ideas are given physical manifestation that you can then judge that person and act accordingly. Is that right?

But would you agree that YOU can sort out a range of ideas in your mind—and the alternatives that they present---and judge them as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ from which to choose and give physical action to?

Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

But would you agree that YOU can sort out a range of ideas in your mind—and the alternatives that they present---and judge them as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ from which to choose and give physical action to?

Actually, I just did that with murder.

Two points on that.

1. I am not evil for thinking about murder, even if the idea in itself were evil (which it is not). If I did murder because of the database (or hired someone to do my dirty work), I would do an evil thing and be well on my way to being an evil person.

2. The idea of murder merely states what is done, not why, what context or anything else. As you mentioned in a post above, in some contexts, that would be good. So how can that idea be evil all all by itself? It can't. It needs something crucial.

It needs me! :)

The main point is that morality either involves the volition and action of a living being or it does not. I hold that it involves both. Don't forget that a mental action that results in a change in reality is still an action.

Here is how I judge it. Within the context of my life and the present laws, I ask myself, is murder is a good thing or a bad thing? I never say: the idea of murder is inherently evil.

I saw slavery mentioned. This principle applies to slavery. It is only good or bad within a context of living beings. As an idea, it is only correct or incorrect. For instance, holding a job is not slavery. Making people work for bare sustenance in forced confinement is.

Think about this: convicts in a prison are essentially slaves for the duration. In their case, slavery is a good thing as punishment for violating rights of others. The convicts forfeited their freedom when they did that. The opposite of freedom in a social context is slavery.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

I truly enjoy looking, with my mind’s eye, at the causation beneath the surface of phenomena. When I read something, I enjoy the identification of new facts and new associations of facts but my passion is stirred by new causal connections that allow me to perceive deeply into the underlying dynamics of nature. Pleasantly, I have found my reading of the transcript of your lecture to stir this passion with its causal connections. It has helped me to hone in on and see more clearly some images I have been circling in my mind for some time.

I would just like to highlight some points in your lecture that struck a cord of personal importance for the current direction of my own thinking.

One thing I have been thinking about a lot recently is agency, not just moral agency but especially causal agency. Something you said struck a cord with my perspective on agency:

An idea, like an emotional reaction, is not a moral agent. Only men and women are moral agents; only they can be good or evil... Actions can be good or evil. Ideas cannot. To think something cannot make a person evil, just as it cannot make a person virtuous.

On another forum-- NB's forum actually-- I recently posted something closely related to this in response to Mike Rael:

People attach themselves to their ideas. They identify with their ideas rather than seeing them as a construct that is evolving. For some, ideas are experienced as part of the structure of the self. When we attach our identity to our ideas we attach our self-esteem to our ideas. Any attack on our ideas are experienced as an attack on our self-worth. It can be experienced as a threat that causes a reaction of indignation.

I tend to experience my ideas as a construct that models the world and a lens through which I perceive the world. As such, I can change my construct and I can change my lenses. They are separate to my ego-self. Differing views of the world are no threat to me if my views are not part of the structure of my ego. Differing views are just different lenses to try on and different perspectives from which to view the world. My view is always open to reevaluation, change, and growth. Other people's perspectives are instrumental to this process, not a threat to it.

Later, responding to Ciro, I wrote:

In describing the structure of the psyche NB suggests we can separate the "I" from the "me." There is a distinction between our thoughts and that which thinks; between our judgements and that which judges; between our feelings and that which feels. NB presents a view of the psyche in which we find the soul, the ego, the core of our being, the unifying centre of consciousness, as being separate to the particular contents of which it is conscious.

Having an idea of this separation between the "I" and the "me" is not automatic. This concept has to be abstracted and integrated from our observations of the dynamics of our own consciousness.

Identifying it and integrating it is an important step in our personal development. It allows us the maturity to be objective about our own judgements, thoughts and feelings. It allows us to separate our core-- that which is conscious-- from the specific contents of our consciousness. It allows the self we are esteeming to be separated from the ego that is evaluating self-worth and self-efficacy. It allows self-esteem to be separated from our particular judgements, thoughts, and feelings.

Objectivist rage, as it has been labelled by Barbara, is the result, among other things, of a lack of development in this area.

Another thing you said caught my attention completely from left field:

... Ayn Rand's quickness to pass negative moral judgments. I believe that because of her remarkable intelligence, she often grasped the consequences of ideas, for good or for bad, with the clarity that was typical of her--as if those consequences were visual perceptions. And so she failed to recognize that the consequences so blazingly evident to her were by no means evident or understood by others. Instead, she decided they were evading what was so clear to be "seen."

[...]

Leonard Peikoff makes the identical error, and has attempted to justify it philosophically. He wrote: "A valuer is a man who evaluates extensively and intensively; his value-judgments are integrated into a consistent whole, which to him have
the feel, the power, and the absolutism of a direct perception of reality.
"(italics mine)

I really, really get this. This definitely played a role in my "randroid" years. While I no longer tend to make this mistake when making moral evaluations, it still plays a role in my difficulties in communicating my ideas. On the issue of causality and free will, for instance, I have engaged Dragonfly-- someone for whom I have great respect-- a number of times on this and NB's forum. I originally came to these discussions with the naive view that it would easy to get someone to see what I can seemingly perceive directly. All I had to do was communicate the same images I see and, voila, my audience would be convinced. Clearly, it's not that simple. My frustration with this experience has even led me to lash-out a couple of times. What I am trying to do now is identify the connections and principles that led my more intuitive thinking to its conclusions so they can be communicated more effectively and can be assessed fairly by any who wish to assess them.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: the conclusions we reach via our more intuitive thought processes-- connections made on the level of dynamic experiential images as opposed to the level of symbolic language-- cannot be assumed to be shared by others. It takes work for each of us to connect language to our connections of images. It takes work from all parties to effectively communicate these intuitive connections. It takes work to effectively understand the connections someone else is communicating by connecting their words to one's own dynamic experiential images at the base of one's own intuitive perspective. And it takes work, a firm commitment to the facts, and a sturdy self-esteem to evaluate another's perspective fairly and objectively when it contradicts one's own. This is true whether we are talking about intuitive moral connections, intuitive causal connections, or intuitive aesthetic connections.

Another point that stirred my attention to the point of pursuing my own connections is:

My own understanding of maturity is that it requires the ability to live with uncertainty. Because no matter how much we know, how much we learn, we always are faced with many uncertainties-- uncertainties about ourselves, about other people, about the world. ...How wonderful it is to find answers in an area where before we had only doubts and questions and uncertainties. And it can be equally wonderful to find new questions where before we thought we had certainty—and then to leap into the unknown in the search for knowledge.

[...]

We must wear our uncertainties as a badge of honor, for it is only through uncertainty that we will find the path to knowledge.

[...]

And we must never give them the sanction of the victim by allowing their ugliness and hatreds to cause us to doubt ourselves.

I have said similar things before and seeing your words reaffirms my struggles with my own uncertainties. In the post in which I described my "randroid" phase I ended it by writing:

How does the "randroid" phase come to an end? For some, it doesn't. For me, my displaced intuitive perspective started to fight back. A voice inside became louder and louder, saying my actions towards other people I cared about were wrong. My own deep vision of the world began to draw attention to things that didn't fit into my adopted perspective. Finally, I had a choice to make: hold onto the vision Rand presented with all the security and strength it offered; or hold onto my own personally evolving intuitive perspective with all its doubts, all its unknowns, and all its potential. I chose doubts and potential over security and strength. I chose my authentic self over a pseudo-self.

I would not want you to think I did not find other value in your lecture. I truly appreciate your thesis and presentation. I will continue to think about it for a long time to come, looking to find new understanding and new connections. What I have written about here is simply my initial stirrings. Thank-you.

Paul

Edited by Paul Mawdsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I wanted to address this section from Barbara’s article (or re-address it) as the answer you provided (seen below) seems convoluted or else I’m just not sure of your answer. I am addressing this question again to also stir an answer from Barbara herself, when she has the time to jump into this discussion.

Barbara wrote: “If the boy were an adult who had seen something of the world, who had had an education, who had heard intelligent opinions in conflict with those he’d been taught, then yes, we could consider him evil—evil because he has so corrupted his thinking that he is willing to ignore the evidence he has heard and seen. But in so concluding, we would be taking his context into consideration, the fact that he is educated, that he has traveled, that he has learned of other ways of living and of thinking.”

Now, here’s the problem, please follow me here: I consider this section—alone---a contradiction to the overall spirit or thesis of the article—that is, as I understand it, that we cannot judge “ideas” as either good or bad, but merely as correct or incorrect. However, in the above excerpt, we are told of a boy who grows to adulthood and who has an education and who “had heard intelligent opinions conflict with those he’d been taught” and who has, nevertheless, retained and advocates (and may very well act on his philosophy in one form or another) the ideas taught to him at a very young age---and, from Barbara herself, we are told that, yes, we can appropriately judge this man as evil---and that we can judge him evil given the nature of his ideas, their content, and the manner in which their held.

Therefore, this being so, it undercuts the entire thesis of the article. As this section is written, I agree with what is being communicated.

Now, here’s your answer to this identification I made:

MSK: “The man in the first case is far less evil (if "evil" can even be applied where there are no alternatives to choose from) than the man in the second case, who chooses to be that way in the face of perceived alternatives. This does not mean that the man in the first case is not dangerous - he probably is. In any war, he must be killed if he is fighting, and if he tries to kill innocent people, he must be stopped by any-and-all means possible, including killing him. But he is a far different animal than the second man. He is that way because that is all he ever knew. The second man wants to be that way and knows better.”

Yes, of course I agree that we are to differentiate between the boy and his “better knowing” adult self—but that’s beside the point I’m trying to call attention to: do you agree—as Barbara herself stated—that, yes, we can judge this man as evil?

Look at where I placed italics to your paragraph; this leads me to conclude that despite having—yet—taken any physical action on his part, we can judge this man. Why? To quote: “he has corrupted his thinking that he is willing to ignore the evidence he has seen and heard.”

And more: Barbra also concludes that we would judge him as evil because we are taking his context into consideration, [the man wants to be 'that way' i.e., evil--and KNOWS BETTER] and I entirely agree that context is to be considered (among other things) when morally judging a man.

****

Please note: all of the above does not proof my case—I’m still to do that. It merely proves the contradictions in the article.

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

To answer this question:

You quoted me, in the context of viewing my claim that when judging ideas as good or bad when judging them (in part) on the truth or falsehood of the idea.

I said: "Is this idea true--and therefore good? Or is the idea false--and therefore evil?"

And then you followed up: "I don't follow this. Here's a simple mathematical idea:

2+2=5

In your formulation, this is evil. Calling it evil makes me laugh.

___________________________________________________

Hold on, don't laugh too soon. To answer your question, yes, I do consider it evil---in a specific context!

Consider: Do you recall Rand speaking of Helen Keller in Philosophy: Who needs it? Rand speaks of the teacher's titanic struggle to arouse the child's conceptual faculty by means of a single sense, the sense of touch. Rand then aks us to evaluate the meaning, the motive and the moral status of the notion that man's conceptual faculty does not require any sensory experience. That's bad enough but, Rand continues, imagine what would have happened if, instead of Anne Sullivan, a sadist had taken charge of Keller's education: a sadist who would spell "water" into Keller's palm, while making her touch water, stones, flowers and dogs interchangeably. Imagine, later on, if the above mathematical idea were also taught to Keller--or any child. Imagine if this were done--with the express purpose to utterly nullify and undercut a human mind.

I am also reminded of Orwell's double-think: All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it: in Newspeak, "doublethink." - George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty Four)

From the book, this is very interesting:

“His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink. - George Orwell (Nineteen Eighty Four)

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found the topic of ideas being good or bad or what have you as being interesting and a little entertaining. :D I just wanted to throw something out there. This is outside of the idea of murder. This will fall along the lines of is this an incorrect idea or is this just a really bad idea or these types of ideas are neither good nor bad and it is just humans that puts these ideas into action that makes them bad, etc., etc., etc. I'm just curious, that's all. Has anyone seen a program on MTV called Jackass? The name says it all. No need for explanation. But I do have to offer some links as well as a brief description of a clip I saw not too long ago. It serves absolutely no purpose other than complete stupidity and will only result in serious bodily injury or even death. All done for just a few laughs at the expense of others and their making a complete ass of themselves. Now I understand the whole idea of justice or what have you. I'm not here to get into all this with you guys, just want to throw something out there and see what you guys or anyone here has to say about this.

Here are some links. Remember, this is all for fun and games and laughs. One is a guy that catches his face on fire by playing with the bbq I think. The other that stands in front of a car and gets hit, just for fun. The other is a guy on roller blades that decides to skate off of a roof and lands hard. The other one is a guy that is being towed behind a car on a sit down skateboard type deal, not sure how fast they're going, with a car directly behind him. So much if he slips off the board, just might get run over. Unfortunately I lost one of the links. But you get the idea of what I am trying to get at. Ideas can be bad, good, or what have you. But when he acts on these bad ideas or what have you will determine his character. I have one more to share with you and I'm sure this will strike home for the guys on OL and may make you squirm, don't want to harm the good ole family jewel. Bad idea from the get go regardless of the action later on and putting this idea into effect. Oh, wait, another one that got much publicity not too long ago is about the kids that would lay down in the street at night while cars raced by them. The people in the cars weren't even aware they were there, not until they were literally right on top of them. Well, I'm sure you can imagine what ultimately happened with that wonderful idea.

I'll make this brief. A bunch of guys get this idea of lighting a bunch of balls on fire that are covered with gasoline, enough to keep them lit and won't go out as they're throwing them at their friend. Their friend is standing in front of the fence with a motorcycle helmet on for protection so he thinks. With what intelligence they have, they brought along a bucket of water just in case. They start throwing the flaming balls at this guy. Literally the flaming balls are hitting him in the crotch, (which this is their prime target mind you) stomach, head, etc. All the while, they're laughing. Well, this guy goes up in flames and the inside of the helmet catches fire, melting plastic against the face has to be extremely painful. They're still videotaping this whole ordeal. One of the friends gets a good idea of picking up the bucket of water, thinking he can help his friend. Well, with what little intelligence this guy has, he quickly dumps the water out and throws the bucket at his friend and hits him in the head with it. Not too bright, are we?? That idea had devastating consequences. It was a bad idea with an horrific effect.

To me, this is an idea that was a bad idea before it even got out of the starting gate. You can have a good idea or bad idea or evil idea or whatever you choose to call it. But this idea of theirs was a really bad idea with an unfortunate end. It was an end easily foreseen. I'm sure if a friend came up to you and said, hey, I got this great idea and he tells you he wants to throw flaming balls at your dick. I'm sure your response would be, hey, man, that's a really really bad idea, you feelin' okay, you on something....

Here are the Jackass links

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=15...1&q=jackass

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=64...8&q=jackass

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...6&q=jackass

I'm just throwing it out there and curious as to what you guys thought of it. It's been rather interesting to watch you guys debate over this and I've found it entertaining. I could be wrong about ideas. But I will say the way I am looking at it, ideas can be good, bad, evil, or whatever you choose to call it. Oh, and by the way, the word incorrect also means wrong; wrong also means bad; bad also means evil. Correct means right; right means good and so on.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I am glad to see you grappling with this. I did too for quite a while - and I am still grappling. I even wrote an essay on the old (now defunct) SoloHQ about it called "Understanding Is and Ought - A Personal View." (That part "A Personal View" is a silly little addition to the title that was tacked on by the site owner without my knowledge - then insisted on as a requirement to leaving the article up - because he was afraid my ideas would corrupt his readers).

I didn't realize how close I was to David Kelley's view back then - I had read very little Kelley up to that point.

My essay is flawed because I stated that Rand made a distinction between cognitive concepts and normative concepts in The Romantic Manifesto. Actually, the distinction she made was between cognitive and normative abstractions. (A guy named Rick Pasotto pointed out my error.) Still, I am grappling with the process of when an abstraction becomes a concept and what the differences are.

(In a lighter vein, this is similar to P.J. O'Rourke's famous question: "When does an intestine quit being an intestine and start becoming an asshole?")

What Kelley has been emphasizing, in my understanding, is what I had been calling a "cognitive concept." This is a mere identification of something according to a correct/incorrect parameter. This stage of an idea is absolutely necessary before it can become a value. ALL IDEAS are subject to this condition.

About 2+2=5 being evil, you wrote:

Hold on, don't laugh too soon. To answer your question, yes, I do consider it evil---in a specific context!

Here's the rub. "Context" usually implies two things: (1) a living entity, and (2) values. (For the record, a context without a living entity is only possible to conceive of by a living entity, and a context without values is generally discussed and used only when initially identifying something - defining what it is in a raw form, so to speak. Most often, context means what is important in a specific situation at a specific time. If it's important, it's a value.)

So 2+2=5 all by itself - as a "cognitive abstraction" - is neither good nor evil. It is merely incorrect. Teaching someone that this is true is evil because it undermines a value - the rational faculty. But notice that there is an action involved: teaching while knowing it is wrong, i.e., teaching the incorrect on purpose.

A moral value for human beings always involves volition. You mentioned the essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?? by Ayn Rand. I remember this one well (and I am going from memory here, without looking it up. She started with a story about a guy in a spaceship marooned on another planet. Then came the three famous questions:

    Where am I?
    How do I know it?
    What should I do?

The part, "Where am I?" refers merely to the cognitive part. I don't know why Objectivists have a problem with the following formulation:

Something needs to be correctly identified before it can be properly evaluated.

You cannot call the mental place holder - the "idea" - of an identification morally evil or morally good. It is only correct or incorrect. The identification precedes the moral judgment. It is even present here in Rand's own words with this first question. The first question is not "Is where I am evil or good?" It is "Where am I?"

I see so many people judge something before they know what it is - or worse, saying that knowing what something is is akin to judging it. That ought derives from is. The correct formulation is that ought always derives from TWO "is's": the "is" of the thing and the "is" of the beholder, i.e., the law of identity applied to two entities. There is no ought without two entities, and one of them always needs to be alive. Values are meaningless to the nonliving.

So talk about a package concept! We are told that what something is means that a moral judgment of it comes built in with its identity. What a crock. Moral judgment occurs only after you know what the thing is and you compare it against your own values, which may or may not directly derive from some vague idea of what your inherent nature is. Values are chosen, whether they align with your nature or not. Incorrect values, of course, will kill you.

Which brings up an interesting point. The idea of a value itself needs to go through the correct/incorrect parameter before it becomes a proper identification of a value - before the good/evil stuff is added.

Back to Rand's questions. After this cognitive part is done (Where am I?), the next stage is merely to get a bearing on what your inner control is (How do I know it?). This, according to Objectivism, always boils down to sensory evidence. So saying things like, "I see it," or "I smell it" are perfectly valid manners of checking how you know something. Cognitively, a person can add things like, "I see it and I remember having been there before" or "I see it and I remember having seen similar places." So even when memory is added, it goes back to the senses.

Only after this check do we come to the valuing part - "What should I do?" This is the action. This is where good and evil enter. Before this point is was only correct or incorrect.

Raw information was inputted, the manner of input was checked, and only then was it evaluated for use.

This is how I understand that an idea all by itself cannot be evil. It needs context for a moral judgment - and that means a person and values are elements that are inherent to moral judgment.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You bring up some very interesting points. Interesting, some of your commits seem to have little questions marks around them--in a chewing manner, that is. This is good. I’m still working stuff out myself and am making it a concerted effort to grasp Objectivism. Even after fifteen years, I’m still learning more.

I’m so glad to be conversing with someone who doesn’t mind rolling up their "mental sleeves" to get down to more technical matters in the Objectivist philosophy. Of course, too much tec-dry talk can split a premature grey hair, and make one feel like Bob Dylan slept in their mouth overnight. But sloppy thinking is worse.

Let me digest and chew on your post and I will get back later tonight.

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found what Mike said to be very interesting in regards to concept formation and how it is used. And was going to keep an eye on this thread and possibly post some things I've been working on, although not complete yet. These past few months I've been working on quite a few ideas on concept formation, how to sucessfully integrate ideas, senses, evidence at hand, LOC, LOI, introspection, extrospection, heirarchy of knowledge, integration, and so on all packed into one idea and that idea is concept formation and it coincides with some of the very first posts I put up on OL that had to do with introspection, extrospection past and present, cause and effect (identity to action) and reverse cause and effect (action to identity), both applied to words with the same result, LOI, To Think or Not To Think, focus, and so on when I first posted here on OL. I've taken these ideas even farther and applied it to nailing down Ayn Rand's concept formation with better clarity and so far seems to be succesful. What I've been working on is based on what happened to me when I was 16 and that process I accidentally started, coming to the same beliefs and saw the same things Ayn Rand talks about without knowing who she was or her philosophy. Some reading this post will know what I am talking about. I've found many posts here, including the current ones to be quite interesting, entertaining, etc.

But something has happened and I am now thoroughly disgusted. I may or may not continue to read your posts in regards to what is now being discussed nor will I be posting any longer on OL. I've made a few good friends here at this site which I am grateful for and it means a lot to me. But unfortunately with these current events, I will no longer be posting. Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me and I wish you well.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But something has happened and I am now thoroughly disgusted. I may or may not continue to read your posts in regards to what is now being discussed nor will I be posting any longer on OL. I've made a few good friends here at this site which I am grateful for and it means a lot to me. But unfortunately with these current events, I will no longer be posting. Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me and I wish you well.

Angie,

We never interacted nor do I know a lot about you, but still I'm curious [and in a strange way, concerned] what is wrong? Something I said....Mike....or....? [in time, I was going to answer your last post.]

Maybe it's not my business to ask, but this is the "nice guy" in me coming out.

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Victor

Thank you for the concern but no, it wasn't you or anything you said, etc., or my posts or what have you. This is something outside of posting on OL in public. I wasn't expecting a reply to my jackass post. LOL It was just to point some things out. That's all. But I've found your posts regarding this subject interesting as well as Mike's.

But thank you for the concern and no need to reply to my post as I won't be replying back or posting to OL. I may come back way down the road but not sure. Thank you for being a nice guy !! Very sweet of you.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Having a pretty intense re-visit of D. Kelley’s views—germane to our discussion here. I would like to cover in this post a few points from his works, considering that I can now see that your own views [and Barbara’s views] are fairly simpatico with his. Of course, I won’t undertake a systematic and detailed examination of the relevant works, [that would be a large post] but I will select a few points out that we have already discussed. Mind you, my Critiques are not unique. The arguments are long-standing back-and-forths...have been on-going and remain, essentially, the same. I’m merely presenting here a “reader’s digest” version of the stanard objections towards Kelley's position, and the problems inherent in that position.

***

Okay, let’s see begin:

Kelley writes: “Tolerance is not a virtue where evil is concerned…But it is a virtue in the cognitive realm” and that “The concept of evil applies primarily to actions and those who perform them” and “Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts which apply to ideas.”

Briefly, these ideas are what I want to deal with.

Let’s condense the position: Soviet tyrants are not evil because they believe in Marxian collectivism---rather, they are evil because they have massacred millions of people. An academic Marxist, on the other hand, who subscribes to the same ideas as Lenin or Stalin does not have the same moral status. He is guilty of the same intellectual error, but not of their crimes…” Morality, it is asserted, applies only to actions. If a person performs an anti-life action, [murder among other actions] then we can legitimately judge him as evil. But ideas are not subject to moral assessment and if a man holds a false idea, then he is simply wrong, but we can in no way conclude that he is evil. The content of a man’s mind, and the way in which he holds ideas in his mind, [the ‘how’ as I have been calling it] and his intellectual associations, such as membership in a Socialist or Marxist Party—in no way reflects upon his character.

Paraphrasing Kelley, he states that the horrors of the past century were made possible by irrational and collectivist ideas….bad ideas can be perilous and that’s why we shouldn’t endorse them. “But they are dangerous,” he writes, “because people use them to perpetrate evil”.

This, the above, is where we find, to quote Peikoff, “ideas severed from (objective) cognition; i.e., from reason and reality.”

Let’s take a look at Kelley's position more closely:

“the horrors of this century were made possible by irrationalist and collectivist ideas … But [these ideas] are dangerous because people use them to perpetrate evil.”

What is the premise here? Evil actions do not result from bad ideas---they are simply made possible by bad ideas. Acting on bad ideas is not a source of evil. Bad ideas are merely a means of perpetrating evil. Evil itself, you see, exists independently of ideas and the “cognitive realm.” Kelley sees choice, not as choice in the “cognitive realm”—the choice to focus or evade—but as a choice simply among “alternative actions.”

Let’s see if I got the perspective correct: The act of evasion or rationalization is not evil, it is a “choice of alternatives.” Ideas may aid the perpetration of evil actions--but they are in no way responsible for producing those actions. So the choice of actions is an “independent primary” and mental processes have no identity and cannot be evaluated ahead of time. I say they can. “Human action,” Peikoff writes, “is not merely physical motion; it is a product of a man’s ideas and value judgments, true or false, which themselves derive from a certain kind of mental cause; ultimately, from thought or from evasion. Human action is an expression of a volitional consciousness.”

This integral connection between thought and action is missing from Kelley’s position. His example of the “honest academic Marxist” is crucial here. Marxism is not a set of “detached intellectual methods and ideas.” Marxism implies and encloses a set of values which are fundamental to it, as any avowed Marxist have made clear to me--and as can be found in all the literature. You see, to sustain the principles of the ”dictatorship of the proletariat” and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” and so forth, any Marxist, I submit, must hold an entrenched hatred for reason, ability, ambition, rational self-interest and independence in principle! He must also accept evasion as a virtue, he must “blank out” his knowledge of the devastation that Marxism has produced. "Unless one lives under a rock," Barbara writes "I see no way in which one can be unaware of this [the destrcution of communism]. But they don't live under a rock!

Peikoff: “Just as every ‘is’ implies an ‘ought,’ so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates. The evaluation, to repeat, comes from the answer to two related questions: what kind of volitional cause led people to this idea? and, to what kind of consequences will this idea lead in practice?"

This Academic Marxist is evil. He is evil just like Barbara’s “educated Arab man” who had heard “intelligent opinions in conflict with those he’d been taught.” However, according to Kelley—to return to that---no set of values is primary to Marxism, and this is just factually wrong. To Kelley, nevertheless, an academic Marxist may be honest, rational, and pro-life and pat little dogs on the head---yet still uphold his belief in Marxism! This is a contradiction. For me, as for other Objectivists, they are “crusading irrationalists”—all of them: the originators, leaders and intellectual spokesmen.

We can see below that Barbara's views are the same as Kelley's. She writes:

"I suggest that in today’s world, most people who embrace communism are, indeed, intellectually corrupt, not because the idea per se is evil, but because the anti-life consequences of creating a communist state have so clearly and universally been demonstrated. Unless one lives under a rock, I see no way in which one can be unaware of this."

Note that communists are "intellectually corrupt"--but their ideas are not evil. That, alone, is yet another contradiction. I suppose the designation "intellectual corruption" is not a normative evaluation, huh?

MSK, you asked me a few posts back: "I don't want to speak for Barbara, but I am confused. You just wrote that she made an 'attempt to make a case for ethical agnosticism or moral neutrality,' and I am wondering (seriously, not with hostility) if you read the same article I did."

Yes, the idea that ideas cannot be good or bad is a case for moral neutrality.

This is what you get from the idea that a philosophy is a set of ideas 'out there' in the “cognitive realm”---with no correlation to values or action. This is to advocate a dichotomy between mind and body and theory and practice. What is the net result of this orientation? Ideas are not matters of life and death. They have no reflection on one’s character or one’s moral status. Values, for Kelley, are a separate and independent realm--a realm which is not derived from or dependent on the realm of ideas. We might also want to ask what the existential results of THIS point of view will lead to!

***

Whatever the merits of Kelly’s works in this regard, they break from Objectivism. Without becoming snippy here...they are, as a matter of fact, a departure from Objectivism. Saying all of this, I don’t want to get into the politics of the Kelley/Peikoff mess or engage in moral evaluations upon him. As I have stated, I’m here to discuss ideas. Ideas, not politics, is my banner. :)

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

Yes, the idea that ideas cannot be good or bad is a case for moral neutrality.

How?

We are obviously talking about two different things. One is the idea in itself and the other is the use or result of the idea (or even the idea as part of a larger whole that includes its use).

Saying an idea by itself does not include morality is not moral neutrality at all. This is merely stating that a quality is not present - not that it is present, but neutral. Those who are in agreement that an idea divorced from use can only be correct or incorrect also define their morals. Evil does exist and so does the moral good and they can and should be identified and acted on. You also use ideas in defining morality. Where is the neutrality there?

Also, I suggest you preface "good and bad ideas" with the word "moral" so as to avoid confusing it with good and bad ideas according to the correct/incorrect meaning - at least in a discussion like this.

Whatever the merits of Kelly’s works in this regard, they break from Objectivism.

I disagree. I see no break with ITOE at all, which is where it would to break properly.

More later.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

It's kind of funny, but for some reason I can't help but think that you had Perigo in mind when this was written. No mystic insight, it just occured to me. Flash! Well, I could be wrong. Just a little aside from the main topic under discussion. :rolleyes:

B.N: Let me give you an example of what might happen if such a person considers himself an Objectivist—and even supposing that he has authentically embraced many of its principles but has not incorporated them into his psychology. A friend says something to him that he fears means that the friend secretly despises him. He does not want to acknowledge his guilty sense that he may have given his friend cause for such a reaction, and so instead he works himself into a rage and tell himself and others that it is he who rejects and despises his friend. The false friend has shown himself to be irrational, evasive, an immoral subjectivist or an equally immoral intrinsicist, intellectually bankrupt, a rationalist, a social-metaphysician, an enemy of the good for being the good, a whim-worshipper, a deliberate distorter of Objectivist principles, anti-conceptual . . . well, you all know the drill. “You don’t like me!”—becomes “You fail to meet the minimum standards of objectivity!” He insists—using concepts he has plucked from Objectivism as a set of buzzwords to feed his malice and to be brandished as a club—that he is the true defender of Objectivism and reason, and it is his friend who is the destructive and evil heretic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I said: Yes, the idea that ideas cannot be good or bad is a case for moral neutrality.

You asked: How?

I'm saying that the Kelley position presents a mind-body dichotomy, and that moral neutrality is an off-shoot that comes with the package. I can cover all of this in due course.

That's all I'll say on this for now, as you said 'more later'; I'll wait for you to gather you thoughts.

But one more last thing:

As for the mind-body dichotomy, here's a little clue from Kelley: "Tolerance is not a virtue where evil is concerned; evil flourishes by the tolerance of good people. But it is a virtue in the cognitive realm."

Let's see, tolerance is not a virtue where evil is concerned [evil being, in this case, the physical realm] BUT it is a virtue in the cognitive realm."

Split!

Victor B)

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I have been terribly busy today and probably tomorrow, so I have not had much time to write. I have also been trying to go through The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand in spare moments.

btw - I put up A Question of Sanction in the David Kelley Corner.

On your mind/body dichotomy, there is such a thing as the law of identity. For example, the body can do physical damage to other entities. In the purely cognitive realm, the mind cannot.

Split!

:D

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I must say that you have sparked my interest in reading and listening to Kelley again; it's been years since I have done that. Now, more than ever, I want to get my head around his ideas to really understand where he's coming from.

Last night, I listened to Kelley's talk on The Nature of Free Will. At the opening of the lecture, Kelley declares that his talk will focus on free will from the standpoint of the mind-body issue, this being an area of interest for him.

But here’s the interesting thing: he makes a distinction between Objectivism and general philosophy. In Objectivist viewpoint, Ayn Rand used the mind-body dichotomy in her analysis of Platonic Idealism, with the example of Platonic love vs. sex, art vs. entertainment, theory vs. practice. In general philosophy the mind-body problem means the relationship between the mind and the brain, and the place of the mind in the physical world. Kelley announces that, in his discussion, he will use the mind-body issue in the latter sense.

Further in general philosophy of the past—greatly weighed down with theology---there have been representations of a separation between the “corporeal” and the “spiritual”-- not only religion, but also folklore and myth. On the whole, the incorporeal realm has been seen as more enduring, efficacious and valued than the corporeal, which is often depicted as transient and of little value...and even illusory. Question: It is no accident, then, that Kelley takes a forever more benign view of the “cognitive realm”? Don't you think? [This is not to grant the idea that Kelley holds the corporeal realm as transient].

Contrast Kellely--on this issue--to the below. It's a section from OPAR.

"What was always true though not obvious has become inescapable (except to those who wish to escape it). The mind is indispensable to human life. Abstractions are not a luxury, but a necessity. Thought is man's guide to action. Reason is a practical attribute.

The metaphysical fact about man that underlies these truths is that man is not a battlefield of contending dimensions, spiritual and physical. He is, in Ayn Rand's words, ‘an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness." Consciousness in his case takes the form of mind, i.e., a conceptual faculty; matter, of a certain kind of organic structure. Each of these attributes is indispensable to the other and to the total entity. The mind acquires knowledge and defines goals; the body translates these conclusions into action.’”

**

In the taped lecture by Kelley, it is also indicative that Kelley did not regard Objectivism as a part of general philosophy, but he looked into the issue of free-will by the standards of general philosophy. It is also key to observe that during the lecture---he emphasizes that these are his views, and as such, are not part of Objectivism. Do you have a copy of this lecture?

Don’t you see the departure from 'pure' Objectivism--if one wants to say that? And does not Kelley’s own statement mean anything?

Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a mistake to make this post. I had made a decision about interacting with VP -- basically, not to -- and I let his comments about David Kelley get under my skin to the point that I broke my vow to avoid sanctioning his presence on this list by dialoguing with him. In the post that follows, he has quoted enough of my post to give the reader an indication of what my post was all about, but I hereby and officially withdraw my sanction of him, which was implied by the former contents of this post.

And to quote one of Ayn Rand's more colorful characters, "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; and to those who do not understand, no explanation is possible." :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Roger,

I will enlarge upon the points you make, and the other related issues concerning what has already been covered in this thread between Michael and I, very soon. I’m also looking forward to what Barbara herself has to say to the points I have made.

But just to take issue now with the closing remarks in your post, I want to say just a few things:

You: Somehow, though, Victor, I get the idea that you really don't care so much about the mind-body problem or the issue of free will vs. determinism, as you do playing "gotcha" about anyone not in the ARI camp, and that David Kelley is your target-du-jour.

Roger, nothing further could be from the truth. I’m terribly interested in these philosophical issues—and I’m a non-partisan Objectivist who is homeless. I have twisted myself backwards to be clear on that. Again: I'm a cult of one.

Years ago, I was a major David Kelley supporter, but as time went along, and with further thinking, I began to see the errors. That was years ago, and now Michael has rekindled my interest in Kelley’s ideas, and the errors in his thinking are even more blazing to me now than ever before. Blame it on philosophical maturing. But I am willing to keep the much praised "open-mind." Really. What's more, I don't even agree with absolutely everything Peikoff or Rand has ever said!

You: If I'm right, by this time next week, we won't be hearing any more about free will or mind-body or David Kelley (as last week it was Barbara Branden and your misrepresentations of her views on rage by Objectivists).

Roger, regarding my “misrepresentation” of Barbara’s views, this is yet to be proved. Where and how did I do this? In any event, I'm sure she can defend herself. If you don’t care to pursue this subject with me, I'm sorry for that, but I look forward to, and encourage, both Barbara and Michael to flesh this subject out with me.

You: If I'm wrong, then you really are too clueless and ill-informed to be engaging in philosophical discussion. In either case, I won't be engaging in a dialogue with you.

Roger, this has become personal, and not the least bit intellectual. Of course, to call me “ill-informed" and “clueless” is just intellectual bully talk—this being something Barbara was rebuking in her article, and this is, by the way, an aspect of her article that I entirely agree with. I made that clear in my first post and commended her for reproaching those individuals who plung in irresponsible and irrational moral judgment of others.

That you won’t engage in dialogue with me, I can tell you that I consider it MY misfortune. And if any of your own evident exhibited anger here is to be attributed to my crass PAST behavior towards Michael and Barbara, I would urge you to read my apology to her---and ask you to see it for what is was---sincere. It’s not contrite, as I think you believe it is.

I’m here to discuss ideas, and if I happen to disagree with some viewpoint it’s not because I have some sort of “Gotcha fetish"…it’s merely because...I disagree. Rational men sort these things out employing logic and evidence; they don’t hurl baseless insults. Can’t we leave all that behind?

You: If this post doesn't satisfy you that Kelley is not a villain or traitor to Objectivism, I'm not going to go another round to try again. I have read him and dialogued with him extensively, and he is a real, non-deviant Objectivist philosopher -- and you simply don't know him well enough to be making the claims and insinuations you are making.

I’m investigating the ideas of David Kelley--honestly. His ideas are a matter of public record. I don’t need to first play a game of darts and drink a few beers with him to judge his ideas. Come on Roger, leave the anger behind; it raises the blood pressure. Let’s talk.

Victor

Edit: Roger, the only person caricatured in Objectivism by me is Lindsay :rolleyes:

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is generating more heat than light. I think it would be more useful to concentrate on some specific text by Kelley, so that we ourselves can judge the merits of his ideas, instead of arguing whether he deviates from the Objectivist canon or not, which is more a discussion for a religious forum like RoR. What is more important: the question whether is ideas are valid or the question whether he is a "real" Objectivist? So far I've only heard rather general and vague assertions on both sides which aren't very helpful to form an opinion on the matter. Perhaps I'm some strange mutant, but my only interest is whether ideas are valid, not to what kind of "ism" they belong.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly is exactly right. What matters is the validity of Kelley's ideas, not whether he has or has not diverged from "pure Objectivism." Also, what matters is not whether I say he has good methodology and valid ideas, but whether you can see for yourself whether he does.

With that in mind, here is the link to a very recent review by David Kelley "Still Deferring to Descartes?" [Review of Mind: A Brief Introduction, by John R. Searle]. Cerebrum Vol 7, #1 (Winter 2005), 87-96

Still Deferring to Descartes?

Here is an apropos quote which I believe was attributed originally to Aristotle, "I love Plato, but I love the truth even more." I think that may be in the spirit of what Dragonfly was saying. I endorse it, anyway.

REB

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now