The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests - Question

[anthony]

We humans would be wise to stop thinking in terms of 'competition' and start thinking in terms of 'struggle for excellence'. 'Competition' represents an animalistic principle which does not help further human development.

GS,

You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees.

I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement:

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others."

THere is more there that is of interest.

I have always felt there was several similar goals of objectivism and general semantics however, I am not comfortable pursuing them in the context of Philosophy. I think Korzybski chose science as his basis whereas Rand chose philosophy. I post here to try and translate between the 2, as it were.

Okay, I was beginning to get that. It sounds...um, challenging.

[Christopher]

Christopher,

As far as that goes, the two men, or all of society, could be Christians holding to the same values.

Perhaps. I'm not a Christian so I don't know. Just because everybody operates by the same value system doesn't mean that the value system works. Or more accurately, just because everybody operates by the same methodology for determining a value system (rationality, faith, etc) doesn't mean that the methodology results in a widespread operable system of human interaction. For example, rationally we can understand how people make decisions and thus can interact with them and understand our interactions with them. But if those decisions are based on values that are created through haphazard emotions, then there is no way to really understand how others operate. People have conflicts, those conflicts represent conflicts between values that arise from potentially different sources (even faith-based experiences lack congruity), and so the world doesn't work with a clear logical order.

Conflicts in Objectivism supposedly do not produce irrationalities and contradictions, whereas if we use a source for determining values other than rationality, God knows what is occurring when conflicts arise.

[Skylark02]

We humans would be wise to stop thinking in terms of 'competition' and start thinking in terms of 'struggle for excellence'. 'Competition' represents an animalistic principle which does not help further human development.

GS,

You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees.

I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement:

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others."

THere is more there that is of interest.

Let the creative men achieve. But most men are not creative. The two men competing for the same job in Rand's example should be allowed to strive for excellence in their own way: through competition. We can't all be creators.

[Skylark02]

Christopher,

As far as that goes, the two men, or all of society, could be Christians holding to the same values.

Perhaps. I'm not a Christian so I don't know. Just because everybody operates by the same value system doesn't mean that the value system works. Or more accurately, just because everybody operates by the same methodology for determining a value system (rationality, faith, etc) doesn't mean that the methodology results in a widespread operable system of human interaction. For example, rationally we can understand how people make decisions and thus can interact with them and understand our interactions with them. But if those decisions are based on values that are created through haphazard emotions, then there is no way to really understand how others operate. People have conflicts, those conflicts represent conflicts between values that arise from potentially different sources (even faith-based experiences lack congruity), and so the world doesn't work with a clear logical order.

Conflicts in Objectivism supposedly do not produce irrationalities and contradictions, whereas if we use a source for determining values other than rationality, God knows what is occurring when conflicts arise.

I don't think Christianity or Islam was created through haphazard emotions. From what I've seen, a great deal of thought was put into their creation. So far, the only social difference I see is in your last statement, differences in Objectivism (as with the few Schisms that have been produced so far) do not lead to a violence which would contradict its retaliation premise. Christianity has put forth a message of peace, yet its history has been riddled with great acts of violence. And we all know that Islam is hopelessly violent and aggressive. What's worse about Islam is that it is not *mindlessly* or *haphazardly* violent and aggressive - it is quite mindful and systematic about destruction, as incisive as a surgeon's scalpel, not *haphazard* at all. Its value-system works in that it accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish: the spread of Islam and the unity of its people around the ideas of global domination aided by the destruction of the US and Israel.

Objectivism, despite the recent popularity of AS, has not accomplished much so far, but rather quickly fell prey to internally destructive schisms.

[Christopher]

Don't get too hung-up on this conflicts thing. It's not a validation for a single philosophy. If anything, to discuss the "conflicts" of men's interest in Objectivism is merely to point out that everybody sees and understands reality with some shared perspective (when everyone is rational).

[Donovan A.]

I don't think Christianity or Islam was created through haphazard emotions. From what I've seen, a great deal of thought was put into their creation. So far, the only social difference I see is in your last statement, differences in Objectivism (as with the few Schisms that have been produced so far) do not lead to a violence which would contradict its retaliation premise. Christianity has put forth a message of peace, yet its history has been riddled with great acts of violence. And we all know that Islam is hopelessly violent and aggressive. What's worse about Islam is that it is not *mindlessly* or *haphazardly* violent and aggressive - it is quite mindful and systematic about destruction, as incisive as a surgeon's scalpel, not *haphazard* at all. Its value-system works in that it accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish: the spread of Islam and the unity of its people around the ideas of global domination aided by the destruction of the US and Israel.

Objectivism, despite the recent popularity of AS, has not accomplished much so far, but rather quickly fell prey to internally destructive schisms.

I'm not sure that I completely agree here Skylark. I think modern Christians simply do not live their philosophy as consistently as they used to (see the dark ages). The Islamic world has not experienced an enlightenment let alone a renaissance.

[Skylark02]

Don't get too hung-up on this conflicts thing. It's not a validation for a single philosophy. If anything, to discuss the "conflicts" of men's interest in Objectivism is merely to point out that everybody sees and understands reality with some shared perspective (when everyone is rational).

I didn't have the desire to drag the discussion down into religion. It's just that you can also say "when everybody shares the same faith" for "when everyone is rational." You seem to be misconceiving religion as ruled by haphazard emotion, or that faith leads to haphazard emotion. In my experience, I have seen Christians as being very self-controlled. And Islamic extremists act out violently only after much thoughtful consideration and planning, and not merely out of impulse.

When discussing the conflicts of men's interests it has to be a response, in this context, to existentialism by default, simply because it is not a response to Marxist belief in the conflicts between classes.

[Skylark02]

I don't think Christianity or Islam was created through haphazard emotions. From what I've seen, a great deal of thought was put into their creation. So far, the only social difference I see is in your last statement, differences in Objectivism (as with the few Schisms that have been produced so far) do not lead to a violence which would contradict its retaliation premise. Christianity has put forth a message of peace, yet its history has been riddled with great acts of violence. And we all know that Islam is hopelessly violent and aggressive. What's worse about Islam is that it is not *mindlessly* or *haphazardly* violent and aggressive - it is quite mindful and systematic about destruction, as incisive as a surgeon's scalpel, not *haphazard* at all. Its value-system works in that it accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish: the spread of Islam and the unity of its people around the ideas of global domination aided by the destruction of the US and Israel.

Objectivism, despite the recent popularity of AS, has not accomplished much so far, but rather quickly fell prey to internally destructive schisms.

I'm not sure that I completely agree here Skylark. I think modern Christians simply do not live their philosophy as consistently as they used to (see the dark ages). The Islamic world has not experienced an enlightenment let alone a renaissance.

I see you giving separate arguments for each religion. With the exception of a few anti-abortion fanatics I don't see modern Christians as particularly violent, and if they have had a profound change of heart (which is a requirement in that religion), then the individuals are compelled toward internal consistency versus the old life of internal psychological conflicts. Without experiencing a change of heart, they are not truly Christians no matter how much holy water was dumped on their heads, and the result will be inconsistency and internal conflict between superficially-held belief systems.

Islamicists don't need to be enlightened to make my argument work, they only need to be consistent. To undergo a post-renaissance enlightenment is not a requirement for consistency. Their faith, consistently pounded into them from birth as a cultish form of brainwashing, is sufficient for the latter.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Skylark02

[tjohnson]

We humans would be wise to stop thinking in terms of 'competition' and start thinking in terms of 'struggle for excellence'. 'Competition' represents an animalistic principle which does not help further human development.

GS,

You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees.

I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement:

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others."

THere is more there that is of interest.

Let the creative men achieve. But most men are not creative. The two men competing for the same job in Rand's example should be allowed to strive for excellence in their own way: through competition. We can't all be creators.

Oh, I'm not anti-competition, I just don't think it should be regarded as the ideal for man. Look at the way science has progressed with scientists struggling to come up with the best theory but not to beat the other guy so much as to feel a sense of satisfaction.

[Skylark02]

We humans would be wise to stop thinking in terms of 'competition' and start thinking in terms of 'struggle for excellence'. 'Competition' represents an animalistic principle which does not help further human development.

GS,

You'll be pleased to hear that Rand agrees.

I looked up in "The AR Lexicon" this statement:

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, NOT its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, NOT by the desire to beat others."

THere is more there that is of interest.

Let the creative men achieve. But most men are not creative. The two men competing for the same job in Rand's example should be allowed to strive for excellence in their own way: through competition. We can't all be creators.

Oh, I'm not anti-competition, I just don't think it should be regarded as the ideal for man. Look at the way science has progressed with scientists struggling to come up with the best theory but not to beat the other guy so much as to feel a sense of satisfaction.

But if the ideal is a non-competitive sense of satisfaction, if competing even against oneself is a non-ideal, then why pursue competition? Why have an Olympics?

[Dragonfly]

Competition is in our genes. Without it, we would never have been successful. Only striving for excellence sounds nice, but I don't believe in it. The basis is always to be better than others, in spite of all the high-flown denials. People need a yardstick to measure their performance.

[tjohnson]

But if the ideal is a non-competitive sense of satisfaction, if competing even against oneself is a non-ideal, then why pursue competition? Why have an Olympics?

Good questions, wouldn't bother me to get rid of the Olympics.

[tjohnson]

Competition is in our genes. Without it, we would never have been successful. Only striving for excellence sounds nice, but I don't believe in it. The basis is always to be better than others, in spite of all the high-flown denials. People need a yardstick to measure their performance.

The key word here is "been". Yes, we have been successful but is animalistic competition the right principle to take us to the the next level? I believe it is holding us back.

[Selene]

Competition is in our genes. Without it, we would never have been successful. Only striving for excellence sounds nice, but I don't believe in it. The basis is always to be better than others, in spite of all the high-flown denials. People need a yardstick to measure their performance.

The key word here is "been". Yes, we have been successful but is animalistic competition the right principle to take us to the the next level? I believe it is holding us back.

GS:

You would argue that chess is not "animalistic competition" ...yes.

Adam

[Christopher]

Don't get too hung-up on this conflicts thing. It's not a validation for a single philosophy. If anything, to discuss the "conflicts" of men's interest in Objectivism is merely to point out that everybody sees and understands reality with some shared perspective (when everyone is rational).

I didn't have the desire to drag the discussion down into religion. It's just that you can also say "when everybody shares the same faith" for "when everyone is rational." You seem to be misconceiving religion as ruled by haphazard emotion, or that faith leads to haphazard emotion. In my experience, I have seen Christians as being very self-controlled. And Islamic extremists act out violently only after much thoughtful consideration and planning, and not merely out of impulse.

When discussing the conflicts of men's interests it has to be a response, in this context, to existentialism by default, simply because it is not a response to Marxist belief in the conflicts between classes.

I know it's off topic, but I'll say that your views about Islam and Christianity are a little skewed. You're looking at the best of Christians and the worst of Muslims. Look at how much violence Christians perpetrated in Eastern Europe or Southern Asia. Belfast is another example. People are people are people, and I don't know that spiritual culture takes a defining role in violence. When these two "cultural groups" go head to head in many minor countries or throughout history, I've never seen either side act more violent (or more benevolent) than the other.

[Skylark02]

Don't get too hung-up on this conflicts thing. It's not a validation for a single philosophy. If anything, to discuss the "conflicts" of men's interest in Objectivism is merely to point out that everybody sees and understands reality with some shared perspective (when everyone is rational).

I didn't have the desire to drag the discussion down into religion. It's just that you can also say "when everybody shares the same faith" for "when everyone is rational." You seem to be misconceiving religion as ruled by haphazard emotion, or that faith leads to haphazard emotion. In my experience, I have seen Christians as being very self-controlled. And Islamic extremists act out violently only after much thoughtful consideration and planning, and not merely out of impulse.

When discussing the conflicts of men's interests it has to be a response, in this context, to existentialism by default, simply because it is not a response to Marxist belief in the conflicts between classes.

I know it's off topic, but I'll say that your views about Islam and Christianity are a little skewed. You're looking at the best of Christians and the worst of Muslims. Look at how much violence Christians perpetrated in Eastern Europe or Southern Asia. Belfast is another example. People are people are people, and I don't know that spiritual culture takes a defining role in violence. When these two "cultural groups" go head to head in many minor countries or throughout history, I've never seen either side act more violent (or more benevolent) than the other.

I did mention the violent side of Christianity.

[tjohnson]

GS:

You would argue that chess is not "animalistic competition" ...yes.

Adam

I'm not really concerned about games Adam, I'm more concerned with competition for food, shelter, and clothing etc. where one "wins" at the other's expense.

[Selene]

GS:

You would argue that chess is not "animalistic competition" ...yes.

Adam

I'm not really concerned about games Adam, I'm more concerned with competition for food, shelter, and clothing etc. where one "wins" at the other's expense.

Understood.

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

[tjohnson]

Understood.

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

Ah.. I wish I knew. I believe it will have to be a grass roots movement that evolves slowly over time as people become more educated worldwide.

[Selene]

Understood.

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

Ah.. I wish I knew. I believe it will have to be a grass roots movement that evolves slowly over time as people become more educated worldwide.

GS:

I have the same wishes. Can we agree on freedom as the default position?

Adam

[Christopher]

In a world of resources, some that are more scarce than others, what model do you suggest we use to resolve that competition?

Adam

What an amazingly-great question. I don't have an answer, but I would love to hear more about what you think.

Let's assume for a moment that we cannot bring everybody up to a level of awareness sufficient to act in ways that support the future of the Earth-resource system. Therefore, certain people's freely-chosen actions (say, 60%+ of the population) could actually end up pummeling the entire Earth into hell. Is there any legitimacy for a group of thinkers to limit such people's freedoms precisely because they are not taking long-term responsibility for the resource system of the planet? (this could be a borderline "Green" argument, or even a power-centric argument, but for the sake of intelligent conversation, please assume it is not such a position).

[Skylark02]

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

[anthony]

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game.

"...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here.

I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom.

He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer".

He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him!

More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers."

(Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.)

For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities.

Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once.

Tony

[Skylark02]

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game.

"...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here.

I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom.

He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer".

He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him!

More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers."

(Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.)

For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities.

Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once.

I don't understand how the term "dichotomy" can apply to a social context. We all live under the same roof, economically speaking. And I certainly didn't imply any social dichotomy. I'm not saying that the genius and the worker can't co-exist in the same society with their two very different respective ethical systems in play. What I'm saying is that the ethos of the genius is incompatible with the ethos of the worker, and vice versa.

[anthony]

Sounds to me, from what I've read here on this thread, that Rand propounded two different ethics. The two men in her example live by the ethic of animalistic competition, but the creator lives by the ethic of rational creativity or genius.

No dichotomy here. It's a numbers game.

"...even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter" (AR) - "particular encounter", is the key, here.

I've been flipping through my old "Free To Choose" (Milton Friedman, 1980) and it really is a good,easy, read on economics and freedom.

He writes "Two classes of workers are not protected by anyone : workers who have only one possible employer, and workers who have no possible employer".

He cites Babe Ruth as an example of the first - only the New York Yankees could afford him!

More relevant is this : "The most reliable and effective protection for most workers is provided by the existence of many employers."

(Of course he uses "protection" advisedly, being opposed to State and Trade Union involvement.)

For sure, Rand's favorites were the Creators, but she did not see employees as fighting for a job, but being able to use their perseverance, improving their skills to make them better equipped in the present market, and being able to take advantage of the huge numbers of job opportunities.

Every worker might 'lose' many times, but he only has to 'win' once.

I don't understand how the term "dichotomy" can apply to a social context. We all live under the same roof, economically speaking. And I certainly didn't imply any social dichotomy. I'm not saying that the genius and the worker can't co-exist in the same society with their two very different respective ethical systems in play. What I'm saying is that the ethos of the genius is incompatible with the ethos of the worker, and vice versa.

True, wrong choice of word. But still, I don't understand your confusion over the two "ethos-es".

These two - 'Worker,' and 'Creator'- are united under the same roof of freedom, I believe, (or should be).

Besides, life isn't that simple : I had a friend once, a high-rise construction worker, who was a genius. (He introduced me to Ayn Rand,btw). Also, in the course of work, I've met many CEO's, some of whom are uncreative dummies.

Tony