A Bold New Step for Objectivist Scholarship

[George H. Smith]

Subject: George just being George as usual

Or: how not to read a post - or do it unfairly and with defiant resistance ===>

>psychobabble

a dismissive, 'loaded' and emotionalist term: often used by those who are resistant to introspection or to psychological concepts as explanations.

> about people who criticize or don't agree with him

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> about how his social skills are superior

'reading in' or psychologizing a personal motive - when that did not actualy exist in the post.

> I advise Phil to remove the pole from his ass

defiantly returning to very sort of abusive insulting language the inappropriateness of which has been pointed out to him.

> insults or hypocrisy

when he is called on doing this, he 'turns the tables' ...calling the very attempt to point these things out "insulting".

Which means George doesn't have to consider them. And he -certainly- doesn't have to consider changing his behavior away from food fights and personalities. (He will just point the finger at -you-, suggesting there is something monstrous or hypocritical or unjust or 'insulting' of you for naming the issue. -- That's his defensive technique.)

Come on, Phil -- are you really so dense as not to understand how insulting your post was? Really? Are you that lacking in self-awareness? Really?

Ghs

[Selene]

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

Can you give a source and explain further?

I tried to find the AS reference for you but ran out of time. If I find it I'll post it.

--Brant

Are we talking about Cheryl's suicide at the end of Part III Section IV Anti life on page 835-836? Signet Paperback 35th Anniversary Edition.

Below is the Atlas Society page

Question: Objectivism upholds happiness as the ultimate goal. Does this mean that suicide is justified if complete happiness is unattainable?

[George H. Smith]

A lot of suicide is revenge driven, frequently unconsciously. Not all. If you are feeling suicidal imagine commiting suicide but without an audience, without anyone ever knowing about it. If such people weren't on the premise of victimhood--of being a victim--most suicides, I think, wouldn't happen.

--Brant

I think you have greatly oversimplified the issue of suicide.

Cato the Younger was an icon to 18th century libertarians because he killed himself rather than submit to the tyranny of Caesar.

Cato was viewed as a hero -- an exemplar of republican virtue -- by many American Revolutionaries. How do you view him?

Ghs

The same. But I was only referring to one type, I think the dominant type, of suicide. It's the only type talking about the way I did that might help someone reading it. It's the great end-curse of common depression.

--Brant

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assess these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

This question is addressed to anyone who cares to answer it.

Ghs

[Selene]

A lot of suicide is revenge driven, frequently unconsciously. Not all. If you are feeling suicidal imagine commiting suicide but without an audience, without anyone ever knowing about it. If such people weren't on the premise of victimhood--of being a victim--most suicides, I think, wouldn't happen.

--Brant

I think you have greatly oversimplified the issue of suicide.

Cato the Younger was an icon to 18th century libertarians because he killed himself rather than submit to the tyranny of Caesar.

Cato was viewed as a hero -- an exemplar of republican virtue -- by many American Revolutionaries. How do you view him?

Ghs

The same. But I was only referring to one type, I think the dominant type, of suicide. It's the only type talking about the way I did that might help someone reading it. It's the great end-curse of common depression.

--Brant

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assess[sic] these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

This question is addressed to anyone who cares to answer it.

Ghs

George:

Happens a lot in war over the centuries. Happening today with suicide/homicide bombers. I understand your point though - these suicides would be considered the highest moral plane.

I was, and I think Brant was, talking about the isolated depressive suicide which categorically is, I guess, considered neither moral or immoral.

"One of our first stops was Nakagusuku Castle, which dates back to 1454. Now only remains, the castle still endures as one of the most beautiful sites of the island. The Pacific Ocean and the East China Sea are both visible as it is one of the highest points of the island. At the southern end of the island, not far from the capital city Naha, is the Okinawa Peace Park, Museum and Memorial Temple. There are over 30 monuments representing peace and atop Mobuni Hill where you can see the tragic "Suicide Cliffs," a monument is dedicated to two generals who committed ritual suicide (seppaku) rather than surrender to the U.S. troops. An underground cave also lies at the bottom of the cliffs where the Japanese headquarters were hidden during WWII. 4,000 Japanese officers and soldiers committed suicide and it took the American troops three weeks to locate the headquarters as it was so well hidden. Thousands of other Okinawans also jumped from these cliffs to avoid the "barbaric Americans" whom they were told would rape and torture them. The cliffs are so strikingly beautiful that it is hard to believe all the tragedy that occured there.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

Can you give a source and explain further?

I tried to find the AS reference for you but ran out of time. If I find it I'll post it.

--Brant

If you mean the man who killed himself in the apartment of his newl married ex-girlfriend, then I remember it, and don't need a reference. I thought you meant a real-life analog of Cheryl's suicide. If that's the case, I am still interested in the information.

[Brant Gaede]

There was a horrible suicide described in Atlas Shrugged. It was so bad that even reading about it at the age of 19 I knew it didn't come from the author's imagination. Decades later I found out such a suicide had actually happened involving a Rand acquaintance. That really was evil. The real question, though, is whether a suicide motivated by unconscious, repressed anger causing depression is moral or immoral. I would say morality there would be mox nix. People simply have to be better trained and self-trained to deal with anger.

Can you give a source and explain further?

I tried to find the AS reference for you but ran out of time. If I find it I'll post it.

--Brant

If you mean the man who killed himself in the apartment of his newl married ex-girlfriend, then I remember it, and don't need a reference. I thought you meant a real-life analog of Cheryl's suicide. If that's the case, I am still interested in the information.

No, no, no--not Cheryl's. I can see why you'd be interested if so though. I would be too.

--Brant

actually, in a way that's what happened to my sister, although it wasn't suicide and a much more complex case, but taken as a whole she had a life she couldn't exploit because of what happened to her as a baby, in spite of her great IQ--she was the only one in my family who could begin to match up to our father's gigantic brain power even though taken collectively and divided by six the average was right about 150--I'm below that but it's been a strange life wondering about all their irrationality and trying not to be victimized by it not understanding how to do that and worrying about the world of the atom bomb and why the world was nutz before I was10: people didn't think, I knew that but I knew I did even if I had little more than that as a working premise; it's the why they didn't think for if they did they'd have made a better world; anyway, when I left for public school, in this case second grade, I thought I'd have an advantage over my non-thinking classmates from pre-school for I had the thinking premise they didn't--alas and alack, the teachers didn't think either and thinking had nothing or little to do with education as presented--regardless, it can't be sheer brainpower or the Jews wouldn't be so socialist and my father wouldn't have been a crypto-Nazi or mom wouldn't have made me go see the Bolshoi ballet in Oakland, CA in 1959, which I couldn't stand because I hated communists and the USSR: the auditorium was next to empty--sin loi, Ruskies, go home!

Edited March 6, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

....... it can't be sheer brainpower or the Jews wouldn't be so socialist and my father wouldn't have been a crypto-Nazi or mom wouldn't have made me go see the Bolshoi ballet in Oakland, CA in 1959, ......

A bit of stereotyping, wouldn't you say. Rand was a Jew too. And I detest collectivism and forced sharing material and time.

How do you come to such a position? Shame on you!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

We agree so far, but I have another question: Do you think the terms "moral" and "immoral" apply to a person who has killed himself? What would it mean to call the decision to commit suicide "immoral"?

I ask this because people don't usually take their own lives unless they regard their situation as hopeless in some sense.

Ghs

George,

I can think of numerous instances of suicide that I would call immoral. Terrorist suicide bombers, for one. And mass murderers like Harris and Klebold, the Columbine High School killers, who knew they were committing suicide when they went on their rampage. Or any of the myriad copy cat suicide murderers who followed in their footsteps. Those are two extreme categories of suicide where the perpetrators would likely claim they were depressed and hopeless but their suicidal actions were definitely immoral.

Brant is exactly right that vengeful suicides are fairly common, but I think they are immoral even when the person only takes his own life. In such cases, suicide represents a vicious attempt to leave others with the agony of living out their own lives with unbearable guilt. Many years ago, I read in the local paper about a young boy who committed suicide and left behind a note for his parents: “Next time maybe you’ll buy me a Honda.” (I think he was referring to a motor bike.)

Imagine the pain those parents had to live with for the rest of their lives. It happens all the time. I definitely regard such vicious behavior as immoral.

People who choose to throw away their lives with drugs or alcohol are also immoral. (I'm not condemning all drug addicts or alcoholics. I'm specifically talking about those who destroy themselves this way.) If you saw the movie, Leaving Las Vegas, I would say that the Nicolas Cage character was immoral. Likeable and charming, but immoral. He simply appeared unwilling to put forth the considerable effort life requires, and chose to take the "easy way out." For a real life example, look at Charlie Sheen. He is operating on the premise of “reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.” That’s a form of suicide, and I would call it immoral when it gets to that point. He’ll be dead soon if he doesn’t somehow manage to pull his head out of his ass.

Adam referred to “the isolated depressive suicide which categorically is, I guess, considered neither moral or immoral.” I tend to agree with that assessment, if the person’s depression is so severe that they feel overwhelmed with pain and totally hopeless. But even then I would say the context has to be considered. If someone gives up easily without putting up a fight, I would be less inclined to exonerate the person.

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assesss these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

This question is addressed to anyone who cares to answer it.

Ghs

I think Ayn Rand named an important principle when she said: “Morality ends where a gun begins.” It becomes virtually impossible to assess behavior morally when people are reacting to coercion. I suppose there will always be those who respond more heroically and admirably than others, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that those who succomb to their apparent helplessness are immoral.

[Dennis Hardin]

Subject: Progressive Escalation (often leading to unfairness)

> I will admit that some of my own responses (to Phil and others) have a disrespectful tone at times—but almost always in “self-defense” to a similar prior post from the same person. I operate on the principle of not "initiating malevolence" [Dennis]

> ...I do my best not to make things personal. But sometimes my anger does get the best of me. Sarcasm, per se, is not necessarily disrespectful if it is aimed at the ideas rather than the person. [Dennis]

What I think happens is things *escalate* across many posts or interactions [i'm not speaking of you or any one particular person, but in general]. This happens in life more broadly as well. It takes a while for something to become a "blood feud". (I wonder if the Hatfields and the McCoys started small before the guns were drawn?)

And generally it takes two to feud - often the blame for escalation is on both sides:

The first person crosses a line of only arguing facts, evidence, process. The the second person overreacts, won't let that slide..and so on. Things start with a somewhat belittling comment like "no rational person could think that" or "that's your usual failure to focus". Then the person attacked, being offended, responds with another attack which is a bit more pointed. After four or five? posts its an all-out series of personal insults. And pretty soon is descends into rampant emotionalism: pretty widespread or ongoing irrationality in response to those people who 'sting' you: firing off salvos of SDP's ("slap down posts"). The combatants are unwilling to find anything rational or persuasive in anything their foe says. "I won't give the sob the satisfaction." And they will look for the slightest nit to pick, rather than offering the honest benevolent respect of dealing with the central point that they knew the person was making: Hahaha, you misquoted Rand or used poor word choice.

You've reached the point where all of what you feel for your adversary is a visceral disgust. And you fire off 'emotionalist' posts just on the basis of that. You don't edit yourself. . .

[to be continued, perhaps]

Oh, I always edit myself. I do my best to make sure the spelling, punctuation and phrasing are perfect. You never want to launch a sarcastic verbal blitzkrieg unless your syntax is impeccable.

Now if I would just wait 5 or 6 hours before I hit "Add Reply," that might help.

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

I heard an hour and a half interview with Kevorkian about six (6) months ago, as you know he is still on parole. I found him to be a remarkable man.

Adam

Adam,

He is quite remarkable. A pioneer. A medical doctor with the courage of his convictions--how rare is that? So many of them use their fancy degrees as an excuse to be disgustingly conventional in every other respect. The fact that this man was sent to prison for reducing the amount of pain and suffering in the world is a travesty. The people who perpetrated that monstrous injustice should be horse-whipped and strung up by their toe nails.

[George H. Smith]

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assess[sic] these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

Why the [sic]? Do you have a problem with my use of "assess" in this context?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

We agree so far, but I have another question: Do you think the terms "moral" and "immoral" apply to a person who has killed himself? What would it mean to call the decision to commit suicide "immoral"?

I ask this because people don't usually take their own lives unless they regard their situation as hopeless in some sense.

Ghs

George,

I can think of numerous instances of suicide that I would call immoral. Terrorist suicide bombers, for one. And mass murderers like Harris and Klebold, the Columbine High School killers, who knew they were committing suicide when they went on their rampage. Or any of the myriad copy cat suicide murderers who followed in their footsteps. Those are two extreme categories of suicide where the perpetrators would likely claim they were depressed and hopeless but their suicidal actions were definitely immoral.

The immorality in such cases pertains to murdering others, not to the suicides per se. These murderers would not somehow be less immoral if they had not killed themselves in the process of killing others. The suicides are incidental to our moral evaluation.

Someone else mentioned suicide bombers. In the case of Muslim terrorists, we are dealing with people who believe that their actions will get them a pass to heaven and eternal happiness. They don't regard suicide as the cessation of life but as passage to a better life.

Brant is exactly right that vengeful suicides are fairly common, but I think they are immoral even when the person only takes his own life. In such cases, suicide represents a vicious attempt to leave others with the agony of living out their own lives with unbearable guilt. Many years ago, I read in the local paper about a young boy who committed suicide and left behind a note for his parents: “Next time maybe you’ll buy me a Honda.” (I think he was referring to a motor bike.)

Imagine the pain those parents had to live with for the rest of their lives. It happens all the time. I definitely regard such vicious behavior as immoral.

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

I will address your other remarks in another post.

Ghs

[anthony]

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

About suicide bombers, and their "passage to a better life",George, have you ever thought that the second-worst morality is that of public opinion - the double standards that insinuate that murdering a bunch of civilians with a remotely-timed bomb in a street, is somehow 'worse', or 'more cowardly' than a man taking his own life in the process?

In popular perception, the suicide bomber MUST have some righteous moral standing, it seems.

That they are equally depraved acts, appears to escape many people, and further the efficacy of suicide bombing attacks.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

A few words about the choice to live....

To speak of a choice to live is curious, in a way. We obviously don't have a choice about being born, so that is not what is being referred to here. We are speaking instead of the choice to continue living.

In most cases we don't make a conscious decision to live. The instinct of self-preservation (or whatever one wishes to call it) is so strong that the desire to live is our natural default setting. We rarely think of it except when we believe our lives are in danger or when we contemplate suicide. In normal circumstances, to say that I choose to live is like saying that I choose not to destroy my computer. True, I could choose to destroy my computer, but the thought never occurs to me so long as it continues to function properly.

Murray Rothbard once said that every living person shows a "demonstrated preference" for life, because if someone really preferred death over life, he would be dead. Only in this sense (again, in normal circumstances) can we say that people choose to live.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

....... it can't be sheer brainpower or the Jews wouldn't be so socialist and my father wouldn't have been a crypto-Nazi or mom wouldn't have made me go see the Bolshoi ballet in Oakland, CA in 1959, ......

A bit of stereotyping, wouldn't you say. Rand was a Jew too. And I detest collectivism and forced sharing material and time.

How do you come to such a position? Shame on you!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sorry for the imprecise wording. I didn't want to paint all Jews with that brush, of course, but when it comes to intellectual and creative endeavors you'll find a lot of Jews and their brains don't always stop them from sprouting dangerous nonsense. They also win a lot of Nobels and do a lot to make this a better world. Speaking as a generalization, Jews are the true speartip of human progress. Do you detest this type of "collectivism"? I'm not denying there are a lot of non-Jews in that "speartip" and I'm not denying a lot of Jews aren't in it too. Should we just be purblind to Jews and what they do so people like me aren't accused of sociological collectivism in both standing up for and criticising Jews qua who they are and what they do? Do you detest defending Jews because they are Jews while they are being persecuted for being Jews? If you want individualism on this level of discourse, Jews would have to simply and completely give up being Jewish for starters and hope others go along with it too and not send them to death camps anyway. While they are at it they can abandon Israel and come to the United States where they might get away with it. This would also give "justice" to the "Palistinians" who will turn Israel into what Gaza looks like right now sans foreign aid because the Arab coutries and other Arabs don't give a shit for them except to attack Jews in Israel and by proxy, the United States.

--Brant

rant, pant, pant

[Philip Coates]

> I use a lot of humor in my life...some people sometimes take it the wrong way. If they don't tell me, I seldom know. ...The clerks at the Safeway..seeing me in line brightens them up. They have a tough job with the constant stream of various customers, some of whom aren't so nice sometimes and I'm sensitive to that...My being humorous simply flows out of me.

..My mother...I have to watch her like a hawk so she doesn't fall down, hurt herself...This is why I make so many posts on OL and why they tend to be short...I literally sit all day on the Internet with my laptop reading OL and scores and scores of financial and geo-political articles.) [brant]

Brant, I really liked this post of yours from yesterday.

It helps me understand you a lot better and like what I see. I think I was perhaps guilty of misjudging you - easy to do when all you know of someone you never met is what you see on the internet. ---It was a very nice and charming personal post. Thanks for it!!

In the future, I'll try my best not to get so irritated at something you post now that I understand better your context, where you're coming from.

Phil

I also try to be friendly and cheerful with the people I deal with day to day, so I can very strongly sympathize with what you're saying above.

Especially when they have a hard job like those in my mother's nursing home. She can be a handful and hates being wheelchair bound.

And there's a slightly elderly guy in my three mornings volleyball league who everyone makes pokes endless fun at because he never seem to move his feet to get the ball and just curses at the ball. I sense he's lonely. So I'm one person who makes a point - when I remember - of treating him with respect and listening to his endless, long-winded dirty jokes...at least when I can...

Edited March 6, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assess[sic] these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

Why the [sic]? Do you have a problem with my use of "assess" in this context?

Ghs

George:

Not at all, as I was responding, the "assesss" came up underlined in red. I will instinctively correct it and did not want someone to think that I was changing your original post.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

In 1527, when Rome was sacked by the imperial army of Charles V, many women, including nuns, killed themselves by leaping into the Tiber River rather than allow themselves to be raped. How should we assess[sic] these actions, assuming we should assess them at all?

Why the [sic]? Do you have a problem with my use of "assess" in this context?

Ghs

George:

Not at all, as I was responding, the "assesss" came up underlined in red. I will instinctively correct it and did not want someone to think that I was changing your original post.

Adam

Okay, thanks. I corrected the typo in my post. The thing that threw me is that [sic] is normally used when the original error has not been corrected. From the Wiki article:

Sic—generally inside square brackets, [sic], and occasionally parentheses, (sic)—when added just after a quote or reprinted text, indicates that the passage is just as it appears from its original source. The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription—i.e. that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer.

This is no big deal. I mention it as a point of information.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

I looked up the wiki also. I can't think of any other way to do a correction like that without making it a big deal...lol.

You know how precise some folks are here at OL.

And of course, I am certainly not directing this at anyone specifically, certainly not Phil.

Adam

[Xray]

(By the way, what did I miss in my translation?)

She "alla" [mispelling?] goes to cry/plead famine

"Alla" is not misspelled; it is the passé simple form of the verb "aller".

Avant l'août

...

before autumn,

août = August

La Fourmi n'est pas prêteuse ;

+The ant is not taken in?;

prêteux, fem. prêteuse = prone to lending; generous.

Avant l'août Dit-elle à cette emprunteuse (4).

says she to this imprudent? one.

Emprunteux, fem. emprunteuse: 'borrower', (verb emprunter 'to borrow']

Here is another translation:

En français

La Cigale, ayant chanté

Tout l'été,

Se trouva fort dépourvue

Quand la bise fut venue:

Pas un seul petit morceau

De mouche ou de vermisseau.

Elle alla crier famine

Chez la Fourmi sa voisine,

La priant de lui prêter

Quelque grain pour subsister

Jusqu’à la saison nouvelle.

« Je vous paierai, lui dit-elle,

Avant l’Août, foi d’animal,

Intérêt et principal. »

La Fourmi n’est pas prêteuse:

C’est là son moindre défaut.

« Que faisiez-vous au temps chaud ?

Dit-elle à cette emprunteuse.

— Nuit et jour à tout venant

Je chantais, ne vous déplaise.

— Vous chantiez ? J’en suis fort aise.

Eh bien ! Dansez maintenant. »

In English

The cicada, having sung

All the summer,

Found herself sorely deprived

When the north wind had arrived:

Not even one little piece

Of fly or tiny worm.

She went to plead famine

At the house of the Ant her neighbor,

Praying her to lend her

Some grain to survive

Until the new season.

“I will pay you,” she said to her,

“Before August, faith of animal,

Interest and principal.”

The Ant is not a lender:

That is her least defect.

“What were you doing in warm weather?”

She said to this borrower.

“Night and day to all that came

I sang, not displeasing you.”

“You sang? I am relieved.

Well! Dance now.”

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/French/Texts/Simple/La_Cigale_et_la_Fourmi

WhyNot/Tony,

I just saw I forgot to put the correct quotes in my post I wrote a few days ago.

Here is the corrected version with (hopefully) weeded out typos on my part (I write many posts pressed for time, also, I'm a sloppy typer, so that's what I get).

Xray,

You like analogous stories so here's one.

Geri lives up the road from Helen. Geri works two jobs, and pays her way through university towards an engineering degree. She saves, she budgets, and she reads in any spare time.

Helen is in the process of blowing her inheritance, by partying it up, expensive habits, and making herself popular within her circle. She despises 'drones' who actually work.

But one day, it all runs out, and with her credit maxed-out, her friends deserting her, visits Geri. She pleads and demands assistance from Geri: "You owe it to me; not everybody is as perfect as you; I made a few mistakes: why should I suffer? and you've got money to spare!"

Ah, the classic topic of the thrifty/hardworking type versus the splurging squanderbug, as in the famous fable LA CIGALE ET LA FOURMI by Jean de La Fontaine:

quote fable <snipped here>

What values do these women portray?

Geri: long-term objective values (independence, rationality, productivity, self-esteem.)

Helen: short term subjective whims.

Which one is 'selfish'? Helen, grabbing all the Smarties, and counting on someone supplying her with more, all her life? Or Geri building character, and her own life?

Has Geri really 'sacrificed' her time at work and study? Should she now make a true sacrifice to bail out Helen?

(We know that, back in the real world - Geri helped out Helen. The industrious and self-responsible Germany, was called on to bail out socialist Greece, and has done so. The better for the worse, now THAT's a sacrifice.)

Like you said, in the real world, (as opposed to more relentless ant (la fourmi) in La Fointaine's fable, "Geri"(= Germany) helped out "Helen" (= Greece).

Geri won't get one cent of that money back, that's for sure. It looks like Geri has an "in for penny, in for a pound attitude, literally here.

There had been a controversial discussion, before the introduction of the Euro, whether to include countries, which, because of their financial problems, got the deprecating acronym "PIGS" (Portugal/Italy Greece Spain).

One could see it coming that the stronger ones were going to have to support to weaker ones because the Euopean union is considered as the higher value.

As for a sacrifice, sure it is a sacrifice. But keep in mind, every sacrifice is performed to obtain what is subjectively perceived as the higher value by the sacrificer. Maybe the higher value for Geri here was to avoid conflict with the rest of the group. Maybe Geri did not want to be regarded as the rich tightwad who lets her poor sister stand out in the cold.

I too have helped out people who I knew were not giving me my money back (the sums were comparatively small (I'm no big earner) but I have the attitude that since one can't take one cent to the grave anyway, why cling to money? Also, my preferred sense of self goes toward seeing me as generous person.

So there can lie a lot of motives behind giving while knowing you won't getting the money back.

Who is to say what is the objective value? Is money an objective value? Money is a tool, ad and for its "value" it is subjected to permanent change.

I'll adress the rest of your post in the next few days.

Reply to the rest of your post:

Xray, your references to roundworms or children's behaviour are completely misplaced, and irrelevant.

Tony,

The roundworm example is merely a drastic illustration of the difficulty where an ethical system runs into which is based on an organism's need for survival.

As for the example with the children's behavior, it merely illustrates that we are all motivated by self-interest, and that the self-interest manifests itself in different forms.

You know Objectivism very well; well enough to differentiate between the objective and subjective in Man's life, but choose instead to mix them up in one gooey mess.

The "goey mess" is created by Objectivism basing its ethics on an organism's need for survival and then arbitrarily placing "man" at the top.

You ferret out the small cracks,

They are not small cracks, they're quite big holes actually.

ignore context and hierarchy,

As for context, where Ayn Rand is coming from is quite clear. Objectivism is not a complicated philosophy to understand.

and proclaim the philosophy's founder to be unempathic.

I think there are many indicators that Ayn Rand had problems with feeling empathy.

Which is why I'm 100% certain she really had no idea that her affair with NB and the subsequent arrangement would hurt the feelings of BB and Frank.

The affair also shows that she mislabeled an emotional decision (engaging in a love affair) as a "rational" decision. Rand got caught in the snags of her own premises here:

She herself had slammed the door shut to giving "subjectivity" a productive place in her philosophy.

In calling the subjective "the irrational", she HAD to regard her own decisions "rational" of course.

In ethics, you waver between cute "We shouldn't be selfish", and cynical, "Everybody is selfish, anyway".

I'm merely taking reality into account. We are both group beings and individuals, and and it is the group sensitivity/group responsibility aspect I miss in Objectivism.

I miss for example that it can be a joy to work to serve a whole group. That it can be a joy to fulfill one's duty (as a state-employed teacher for example).

"Whatever works out right", appears to be your pragmatic philosophy.

Indeed I am mostly a pragmatist. Pragmatism has exactly the dose of realism I need.

La Cigale! (Xray.)

Good that you appreciate poetry - I'm convinced that one needs to have poetry in one's soul to totally appreciate Objectivism. Otherwise, those logicians could sterilize it to death.

Objective/subjective, which would you like to have as a starting point?

To be objective, firmly and primarily, but have the individual choice towards 'subjective' compassion, on occasions?

I'm having difficulty with a black and white thinking in that field.

While I often behave as a "cigale" in my free time, I'm quite the "fourmi" in my job.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Are you going to make Phil stay after class for punishment?

Kinky!

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

I have my own opinions on these difficult issues, but they are not engraved in stone, and at this point I prefer to hear what others have to say.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George:

I looked up the wiki also. I can't think of any other way to do a correction like that without making it a big deal...lol.

You know how precise some folks are here at OL.

And of course, I am certainly not directing this at anyone specifically, certainly not Phil.

Adam

Around 1990, some anal-retentive type published a review of ATCAG in a Mensa newsletter. When he quoted a passage that included the phrase "to rationally demonstrate," he inserted [sic] to indicate that I had split an infinitive. In my reply, I cited Fowler and other standard authorities on split infinitives. I then requoted the passage as follows: "'to rationally demonstrate' [sic]" [sic].

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

I looked up the wiki also. I can't think of any other way to do a correction like that without making it a big deal...lol.

You know how precise some folks are here at OL.

And of course, I am certainly not directing this at anyone specifically, certainly not Phil.

Adam

Around 1990, some anal-retentive type published a review of ATCAG in a Mensa newsletter. When he quoted a passage that included the phrase "to rationally demonstrate," he inserted [sic] to indicate that I had split an infinitive. In my reply, I cited Fowler and other standard authorities on split infinitives. I then requoted the passage as follows: "'to rationally demonstrate' [sic]" [sic].

Ghs

Nice touch.

[Selene]

Using a young child as an example complicates the issue, but let's assume we are talking about an adult who commits suicide for revenge, i.e., in the hope of causing others to feel pain. What moral principle is being violated here?

Ghs

The moral principle of mind independence? Of 'second-handedness' - ie., ultimately altruism?

The subject that interests me is whether a person's obligations to others should be factors in our evaluation of his suicide. Should his financial debts be considered? Should the fact that he leaves behind a grieving family be considered? Etc., etc.

I raise these questions because if we argue that others should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to commit suicide, we might end up, logically speaking, defending the position that there are situations in which we should live solely for the sake of others.

I have my own opinions on these difficult issues, but they are not engraved in stone, and at this point I prefer to hear what others have to say.

Ghs

As to the "obligations to others," that works both ways. For example, Frank Capra's Jimmy Stewart moment where he realizes that he is worth more dead than alive.

Placing a net dollar value on a human life, as Capra opines in this great film, should not be the standard. It is how many lives we touch on a regular basis and how many lives we affect.

This does get to the issue of others needs being a "claim on your life."

It is the issue, as you clearly state, of living "solely" for the sake of others. I reject that as the standard, but family is a significant value for me. It is integrated into my selfishness because it creates great pleasures for me.

A number of folks here on OL have had less than pleasant upbringings, particularly those who had repressive parents or communities within which to grow. Rand was a desperately needed way out of that life deadening swamp.

If the suicide was voluntarily within an obligatory relationship with those others left behind then those obligations should be considered. Whether they should be dispositive in the balance of the evaluation is not clear to me.

You raise a fascinating issue here though.

Adam