Pain? Joy? Benevolent universe premise?

[BaalChatzaf]

You're the one claiming he has Assbarger's Syndrome and learned how to fake it to get along with the unafflicted.

--Brant

I am an Aspie. I have learned to adapt many of my externalaties to the social requirements of the Neuro Typical world. As the old saying goes: When in Rome, spend lira. I live among NTs and I am married to one, lo these last 52+ years. But I cannot be other than I am. I am genetically wired to be literal minded. So it goes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

From the link Stephen Boydstun gave: (bolding mine)

"The ‘benevolent universe’ does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is ‘benevolent’ in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents, you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.”

The universe is no sentient being, from which it follows that it can neither be benevolent nor malevolent nor indifferent (for indifference is a feeling too).

Peikoff put Rand’s benevolent-universe premise this way: In Rand’s philosophy, it is recognized that accidents and failures are possible, but they are not the essence of human life. For humans who live by Rand’s morality, the achievement of values is the norm. “Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. . . .

So living by "Rand's morality" is the conditio sine qua non?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

From the link Stephen Boydstun gave: (boldlng mine)

"The 'benevolent universe' does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is 'benevolent' in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents, you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality."

The universe is no sentient being, from which it follows that it can neither be benevolent nor malevolent nor indifferent (for indifference is a feeling too).

Peikoff put Rand's benevolent-universe premise this way: In Rand's philosophy, it is recognized that accidents and failures are possible, but they are not the essence of human life. For humans who live by Rand's morality, the achievement of values is the norm. "Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. . . .

So living by "Rand's morality" is the conditio sine qua non?

Over the coming decade Americans will wake up to the full reality of the America that is but badly remember the America that was and not really know why what happened. Benevolence will be replaced by meanness and parasitism the unavoidable norm as the country gets levelled economically while the Muslims destroy Europe. A vast paroxysm of war will shake the world born of anger, fear and gross irrationality by the dolts that led us down. At 65 I'm much too young for this scenario so I'll have to go down fighting, thankful I have no children.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

Agreed. Unfortunately, and I never thought I could make this statement, I do have children. Both very bright. One out of college and on his way and one in her freshman year at a little Ivy in the Mid west on a full scholarship.

I guess I did not do a good enough job handing the world to them, but I, at 62 will also go down fighting.

I am sorry that your scenario has a solid chance of being realized.

Adam

[thomtg]

Rand defined what she meant. Why not assume she meant what she said she meant? That is . . . . if you find something an author says puzzling to you, why prefer to impute a meaning to them which leads to silliness and CONTRADICTS the author's explicit statements on the subject, instead of assuming the author means what they explicitly say they mean when they expand on their statement?

Bill P

"Rand defined what she meant", you wrote. Where is that specific definition of hers in terms of "benevolent" in connection to "universe"?

Here. About source: A, B

Stephen,

I would like to learn from you exactly how you did what you did: to recall ideas you had heard or studied and to locate precisely from where they were communicated or learned.

But back to the point, you have two parenthetical snippets:

(Claudia, there are a host of people, such as on that other forum you mentioned, whose diurnal song is denigration of Rand’s philosophy. The point of their friendliness towards you and of their discussions with you is to run off that song again and again. Don’t be used.)

And now reader---bestir thyself---for though we will always lend thee proper assistance in difficult places, as we do not, like some others, expect thee to use the arts of divination to discover our meaning, yet we shall not indulge thy laziness where nothing but thy own attention is required; for thou art highly mistaken if thou dost imagine that we intended when we begun this great work to leave thy sagacity nothing to do, or that without sometimes exercising this talent thou wilt be able to travel through our pages with any pleasure or profit to thyself.

To which I would add the principle of charity. And before anyone jumps in and imputes the literal meaning and thus to claim outlandishly some conclusion about me or about Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, etc., or about Objectivism and its movements--whew, this is tiresome!--I mean by this principle, that in order to gain objectivity, whenever I read something from someone, that I should give him the assumption that he is writing logically, that I should grant him the benefit of the doubt--barring evidence otherwise. Thus, if I read a sentence from a text and I don't understand it, then it is my responsibility to find everything possible from the text and the related texts (e.g., earlier texts, dictionaries, lexicons, etc.) to make that sentence intelligible.

Bill's root post gives a short summary from the author herself of the emotional leitmotif of her 1000-page book. In my view, before anyone has the right to criticize the summary as to whether it accurately summarizes the book or not, he must have read the book. To criticize the summary, and worse yet, to summarize the summary--condensing the entire book into a one-line quip--and to impute a meaning to the author's words contrary to the intended; that's being uncharitable. To be uncharitable in this sense is not to be objective.

By the way, Bill, thanks for opening the book, finding this letter from Ayn Rand, and typing it manually to post it to this forum thread--all for the enlightenment and reading pleasure of all who apply themselves. You, the writer/typist, clearly hold the principle of respect--that you respect your readers' intelligence and diligence to grasp objective meaning and understanding from what you offered.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Thom T G

[Christopher]

Yes, I've always been impressed with Stephen's ability to source just about any Objectivist-related material.

Here's a challenge: Stephen, can you give me a quote from Atlas Shrugged on p.346 without looking? !

[Selene]

Here Chris, but I had to look!

"Dagny, you didn't intend it then, but what you were saying was that you wanted to sleep with me, wasn't it?"

"Yes Hank. Of course."

Adam

Edited May 13, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

Here Chris, but I had to look!

"Dagny, you didn't intend it then, but what you were saying was that you wanted to sleep with me, wasn't it?"

"Yes Hank. Of course."

Adam

You cheated, doesn't count. Stephen, you can't use this one!

[Xray]

I guess I did not do a good enough job handing the world to them, but I, at 62 will also go down fighting.

Who is "them"?

Edited May 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Fair question.

My children and my fellow citizens who are growing up as we speak.

Understood...yes.

Adam

[Christopher]

I'm sure I'm echoing what others have said on different posts, but here it is again (on the benevolent universe concept):

Benevolence is how man perceives the universe (not how the universe is per se) because:

Man is built to survive in the universe

Man is motivated to survive through positive experience

Therefore, through survival man has positive experiences and perceives that the universe is benevolent.

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

The Shakers had a benevolent universe in mind, but refused to reproduce.

Today there is a growing movement of folks who are refusing to reproduce in order to save the planet.

Is the universe benevolent to them.

I am not disagreeing with you, juts raising questions.

Good threads you get involved in.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

I think it's important to differentiate between a single man and the species here. What is perceived as "success" for an individual may mean nothing to the entire species. When you speak about "more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die" remember that the species has only one chance to survive - if it goes extinct it's game over. This may be a good reason to broaden our horizons and think about what is best for the human species instead of what is best for an individual man.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think it's important to differentiate between a single man and the species here. What is perceived as "success" for an individual may mean nothing to the entire species.

GS,

And vice-versa. Yet we cannot totally divorce the individual from the species, nor can we postulate a species without individuals making it up.

This is one of the reasons I am seriously considering an 80-20% kind of split in ethics (as a rough rule of thumb), with 80 being individual-related values and 20 being species-related values. The focus is on the individual but species is not abandoned. I believe both are necessary in ethics since belonging to the human species is about as fundamental to human nature as you can get.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

I think it's important to differentiate between a single man and the species here. What is perceived as "success" for an individual may mean nothing to the entire species. When you speak about "more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die" remember that the species has only one chance to survive - if it goes extinct it's game over. This may be a good reason to broaden our horizons and think about what is best for the human species instead of what is best for an individual man.

Watch out or you'll end up in collectivism-land!

As for what is best for an individual man? Lots of women! That should help the species too. I suggest three wives and ten concubines.

--Brant

[anonrobt]

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

I think it's important to differentiate between a single man and the species here. What is perceived as "success" for an individual may mean nothing to the entire species. When you speak about "more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die" remember that the species has only one chance to survive - if it goes extinct it's game over. This may be a good reason to broaden our horizons and think about what is best for the human species instead of what is best for an individual man.

Watch out or you'll end up in collectivism-land!

As for what is best for an individual man? Lots of women! That should help the species too. I suggest three wives and ten concubines.

--Brant

Hah - you couldn't begin to properly service them all, quite aside from treating them all as the individuals they each are with the respect thus due them...

[tjohnson]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species. I just read a biography of Einstein (very good by Walter Issacson) and he was speaking about how Einstein was very interested in having a kind of World Army that could keep the peace between countries much like police forces do within countries. This seems to be what the US was attempting to do unilaterally in the Persian Gulf War. I think the idea has merit but it has to be done right. These kind of initiatives might go a long way towards mankind's survival and yet let countries maintain their own cultural independence.

[Christopher]

Chris:

The Shakers had a benevolent universe in mind, but refused to reproduce.

Today there is a growing movement of folks who are refusing to reproduce in order to save the planet.

Is the universe benevolent to them.

I am not disagreeing with you, juts raising questions.

Good threads you get involved in.

Adam

If the Shakers don't procreate, sounds like they're acting against a basic human drive. To them (and to the Pope), the universe must seem a very grim place in which one is always fighting against one's instinctual urges. It also sounds like they could use a reality check.

I was thinking about this thread as I drove to the store yesterday, and it just struck me how as humans, the entire world is our oyster. We can harvest food, drink coffee, create pleasurable experiences, play, travel... it's great to be human, and we are part of nature! (despite what some weird cult groups say)

Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

Yes indeed.

My first question to the alleged "environmentalist" is:

For the purpose of having a quality discussion, you do agree that man is part of the environment? Correct.

You would be amazed by how many struggle with that simple question.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Benevolence is how man perceives the universe (not how the universe is per se) because:

Man is built to survive in the universe

Man is motivated to survive through positive experience

Therefore, through survival man has positive experiences and perceives that the universe is benevolent.

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

In other words, a combination of the trivial weak anthropic principle and panglossian optimism. We wouldn't be here if we had not been very efficient survival machines. So far. One big meteorite, and we'll discover that the universe is far from benevolent. We've adapted to a very tiny part of the universe, but we shouldn't commit the error of thinking that the universe has adapted to us. Just one little hiccup of the universe and we're goners. No matter how you try to rationalize the use of the expression "benevolent universe", it's just nonsense.

[Brant Gaede]

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

I think it's important to differentiate between a single man and the species here. What is perceived as "success" for an individual may mean nothing to the entire species. When you speak about "more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die" remember that the species has only one chance to survive - if it goes extinct it's game over. This may be a good reason to broaden our horizons and think about what is best for the human species instead of what is best for an individual man.

Watch out or you'll end up in collectivism-land!

As for what is best for an individual man? Lots of women! That should help the species too. I suggest three wives and ten concubines.

--Brant

Hah - you couldn't begin to properly service them all, quite aside from treating them all as the individuals they each are with the respect thus due them...

Well, at least I could keep 'em pregnant! But I couldn't afford to buy them shoes. Anyway, that'd be good for the species, at least in my case; I've got good genes.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

My previous post on this thread was #70,000 on OL.

My prize?

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

My previous post on this thread was #70,000 on OL.

My prize?

--Brant

My prediction: You will get to read an even dozen posts outlining bizarre conspiracy theories.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

My previous post on this thread was #70,000 on OL.

My prize?

--Brant

My prediction: You will get to read an even dozen posts outlining bizarre conspiracy theories.

Bill P

There were 666 views of this thread prior to this view of mine. I had to jump in and do something about it before evil realized the gateway was open and came pouring through, contaminating OL with confusions.

--Brant

[Selene]

Now that was hilarious Brant!