A Post-Randian Thinker Has Found His Home (Maybe)

[Xray]

As other OL members have pointed out, what biologists call "altruism" is not what Rand -- who adopted the precise meaning assigned to "altruism" by Auguste Comte, the man who coined the word -- meant by "altruism." Again and again, Rand states that "altruism" is the "ethical theory" according to which "self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (Introduction to VOS.) Thus, as both Comte and Rand conceived "altruism," it is a theory of moral duty .

Comte and Rand assigned the same meaning to "altruism", yes. The difference being that Rand condemned it as a moral duty while Comte praised the "vivre pour autrui" (live for others).

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

A similar tendency to sanctify (even deify) can be observed with Rand as well, but to her it is "Man" who is the object of worship.

Comte and Rand are two moralists arguing from the opposite sides of the spectrum, with both having in common that they worship and deify their highest value.

Comte later even developed a "positivist religion":

http://www.radicalacademy.com/philpositivists.htm

"This new religion had as its object the cult of the Great Being (humanity, made up of all men, past, present, and future), the Great Medium (world-space), and the Great Fetish (the earth)." (end quote)

As for whether altruistic behavior is genetically based -

everyone watching a group of our closest animal relatives will see impulses to violently interfere with other group members side by side with actions like e. g. grooming.

One can draw the inference that both the impulse to serve oneself first and the impulse to serve others first are biologically hardwired because both are needed for survival. We are no different from the chimps in that respect.

Imo those who base their moral views only on one of these two fundamental aspects of human nature (while blanking out the other) erroneously believe they can walk using only one epistemological leg.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

A similar tendency to sanctify (even deify) can be observed with Rand as well, but to her it is "Man" who is the object of worship.

Comte and Rand are two moralists arguing from the opposite sides of the spectrum, with both having in common that they worship and deify their highest value.

I don't suppose you can quote a passage where Rand says this. Of course you can't, but that has never stopped you from misrepresenting her ideas before.

The following passages from Comte were quoted in the "Horror File" of The Objectivist (August, 1971):

Auguste Comte (1798-1857)

Positivism alone holds at once both a noble and true language when it urges us to live for others. This, the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and of duty. Implicitly and indirectly it sanctions our personal instincts, as the necessary conditions of our existence, with the proviso that they must be subordinate to those of altruism. With this limitation, we are even ordered to gratify our personal instincts, with the view of fitting ourselves to be better servants of Humanity, whose we are entirely." The Catechism of Positive Religion, trans. R. Congreve (London, John Chapman, 1858), p. 313.

In politics we must eliminate Rights, as in philosophy we eliminate causes .... Positivism only recognises duties, duties of all to all. Placing itself, as it does, at the social point of view, it cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, obligations to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service. Where, then, in the case of man, is the foundation on which we are to rest the idea of rights?... Rights, then, in the case of man, are as absurd as they are immoral." Ibid., pp. 331-3.

It will be a miraculous day indeed if biologists ever discover this kind of altruism gene. The odds of success are roughly equal to finding a Theory of Special Relativity gene.

Ghs

[Xray]

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

A similar tendency to sanctify (even deify) can be observed with Rand as well, but to her it is "Man" who is the object of worship.

Comte and Rand are two moralists arguing from the opposite sides of the spectrum, with both having in common that they worship and deify their highest value.

I don't suppose you can quote a passage where Rand says this. Of course you can't, but that has never stopped you from misrepresenting her ideas before.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, and I think you know that very well.

Remember the passage in AS where Rand uses the phrase "man as a god" when comparing Galt's body to that of a Greek statue?

Or have you forgotten what Rand wrote on page ix in the introduction to the 25th edition of The Fountainhead?

Where she - I'm quoting from Lou Rollins's The Myth of Natural Rights, p 18/19 -

"complained that such concepts as "exaltation", "worship", "reverence" and "sacred" have been monopolized by religion.

But, she said, such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists.

So, she continued, " It is the highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the muck of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man. She then identified the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man worship." (end quote)

Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)

Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."

Edited November 21, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

A similar tendency to sanctify (even deify) can be observed with Rand as well, but to her it is "Man" who is the object of worship.

Comte and Rand are two moralists arguing from the opposite sides of the spectrum, with both having in common that they worship and deify their highest value.

I don't suppose you can quote a passage where Rand says this. Of course you can't, but that has never stopped you from misrepresenting her ideas before.

I'm not misrepresenting anything, and I think you know that very well.

Remember the passage in AS where Rand uses the phrase "man as a god" when comparing Galt's body to that of a Greek statue?

Or have you forgotten what Rand wrote on page ix in the introduction to the 25th edition of The Fountainhead?

Where she - I'm quoting from Lou Rollins's The Myth of Natural Rights, p 18/19 -

"complained that such concepts as "exaltation", "worship", "reverence" and "sacred" have been monopolized by religion.

But, she said, such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists.

So, she continued, " It is the highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the muck of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man. She then identified the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man worship." (end quote)

Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)

Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."

Your self-proclaimed skill in spotting metaphorical usages seems to have failed you in matters pertaining to Rand.

Moreover, when social theorists and anthropologists distinguish between the "sacred" and the "profane" in various cultures, they don't necessarily mean "sacred" in a religious sense. They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Perhaps you should contribute to that Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature website. They have no discernible intellectual standards there, so you will be treated like a queen, no matter how idiotic your comments are. And what could be more rewarding than joining a cult of Rand bashers?

As for the quotation from Max Stirner (i.e,. Kaspar Schmidt), you should remember that Stirner was himself an atheist. His remark was directed against Feuerbach, Bauer, and Hegelian-types who supposedly reified abstract concepts. In other words, by our atheists, Stirner meant German atheists. Before you get cute with quotations, you should make some effort to understand their context. And if there is anything conspicuous by its absence in The Myth of Natural Rights, it is an understanding of context.

Lou is indeed a Stirnerite. This means that he could rob, rape, and/or murder you without any kind of moral impropriety whatsoever. (All values are "subjective," after all.) If this is the kind of intellectual company you wish to keep, be my guest.

Although I don't usually recommend writings by Marx and Engels, I highly recommend their lengthy and scathing critique of "Saint Max" ("our German school-teacher") in The German Ideology. Marx and Engels took obvious delight in exposing the "delightful contradictions" of "our holy dialectician."

Lastly, stop quoting Lou Rollins as if he is some kind of authority on either Rand or natural rights. I know Lou much too well to fall for any of this.

Ghs

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)

Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."

I must say that I am surprised so soon after joining an Objectivist forum website to encounter zealous advocates of altruism. Perhaps I should have a look at some Christian websites to see if there are advocates of crucifixion and/or sin.

[kiaer.ts]

Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.

Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)

Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."

I must say that I am surprised so soon after joining an Objectivist forum website to encounter zealous advocates of altruism. Perhaps I should have a look at some Christian websites to see if there are advocates of crucifixion and/or sin.

There are a whole host of masochists here. Skeptics, contrarians, socialists, materialists with inconsistent math fetishes, pacifists, conspiracy theorists, borderline racists, Unitarians, even, until recently, a "libertarian" Mohammedan convert who only advocates jihad against targets such as Israel, not indiscriminately. In Xray's case, she confesses she cannot express in her own words what a stolen concept is, or why it is important. As for being an altrust - maybe - but I'd be surprised if she stands up for any principle. On occasion these people do post interesting comments. It is the orthodox among us you really have to worry about. And the prancers.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I must say that I am surprised so soon after joining an Objectivist forum website to encounter zealous advocates of altruism. Perhaps I should have a look at some Christian websites to see if there are advocates of crucifixion and/or sin.

There are a whole host of masochists here. Skeptics, contrarians, socialists, materialists with inconsistent math fetishes, pacifists, conspiracy theorists, borderline racists, Unitarians, even, until recently, a "libertarian" Mohammedan convert who only advocates jihad against targets such as Israel, not indiscriminately. In Xray's case, she confesses she cannot express in her own words what a stolen concept is, or why it is important. As for being an altrust - maybe - but I'd be surprised if she stands up for any principle. On occasion these people do post interesting comments. It is the orthodox among us you really have to worry about. And the prancers.

Gee, whiz. As Obama would say (or was it Bush?) "it looks like America." Prancers? Yikes!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

When people work through ideas, it's often a messy process. (It certainly is with me.)

I prefer to let folks work through their own thinking than to tell them what they have to think. We start with Objectivism, but then it's on each person to do his/her own thinking.

In other words, I'm not big on preaching.

That's why there is such a variety here.

Don't worry. If people go overboard and start gumming up the forum with sermonizing on this viewpoint or that (or playing intimidation games, etc.), I take steps to reestablish balance. I don't want anyone muted except nasty folks like trolls, but I don't want the religiosity in attitude of anyone to overrun the forum, either.

Also, I think it is great to be able to answer the best criticisms that can be thrown at Objectivist ideas. Then you know for sure that the ones that stand are solid. And the ones that don't shouldn't be adopted in the first place.

The only way to do that is to engage other viewpoints fairly. I'm not perfect at keeping this kind of environment going, but from looking at the results, I do a pretty good job.

Michael

[Xray]

Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)

Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."

Your self-proclaimed skill in spotting metaphorical usages seems to have failed you in matters pertaining to Rand.

Moreover, when social theorists and anthropologists distinguish between the "sacred" and the "profane" in various cultures, they don't necessarily mean "sacred" in a religious sense.

I think you are trying to downplay how connotatively loaded the term "sacred" is.

They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Could you please provide some illustrative quotes to back up this assertion of yours?

As for "religious", it does not necessarily imply belief in transcendence. Quite a few ideologies could be called 'secular salvation religions'. Marxism for example. And anyone who has ever discussed with fervent Marxists will have noticed that to them, the writings of Marx and Engels are considered to be "sacred". What is regarded as sacred is of course not subject to criticism, and those who dare to criticize violate a taboo.

Perhaps you should contribute to that Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature website.

I am a contributor there, albeit not often, because I find the blog format quite cumbersome to navigate.

They have no discernible intellectual standards there,

Oh, they do have a discernible intellectual standard. Posters like e. g. Dragonfly guarantee a high level of quality. And the founder Greg Nyquist is of outstanding intellect as well.

And what could be more rewarding than joining a cult of Rand bashers?

The posters at ARCHN have controversial discussions as well. They are far too motley a crew not to have them.

As for cults - do you think I would post here at OL if I were interested in "joining a cult of Rand bashers"?

I have no penchant whatsoever for any type of cult, and am interested in them merely as objects of study.

As for the quotation from Max Stirner (i.e,. Kaspar Schmidt), you should remember that Stirner was himself an atheist.

Your point being? Why can't an atheist sarcastically speak of his fellow atheists as "pious people"?

The Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek for example said of herself that she does not believe in God, but 'like every good atheist, she writes about him all the time'.

I too know quite a few atheists who are pious people. And I'm sure you do as well.

I often find atheists to be far more interested in religion than agnostics.

Especially the atheists who were fervent believers in god before often substitute the 'god principle' still present in their minds with something else. With Nietzsche for example, the "Übermensch" ('Superman') replaced 'God'.

So in certain ideologies, "God" has merely changed his name: to "man", "society" etc.

"God is dead." (Nietzsche)

"Nietzsche is dead." (God)

That's a good joke from the theist side I must say, and I think every atheist with some sense of humor will have to agree.

His remark was directed against Feuerbach, Bauer, and Hegelian-types who supposedly reified abstract concepts. In other words, by our atheists, Stirner meant German atheists. Before you get cute with quotations, you should make some effort to understand their context.

Quotes are taken out of context all the time, mostly for reasons of economy, and this procedure is only problematic if what it says in the quote would not be understood without the context. But this is not the case with the Stirner quote at all.

Therefore one could easily modify a little what Stirner said of "our" (German) atheists to 'our current atheists of the global village' and say:" Quite a few of our atheists are pious people". Any objections to putting it like that?

And if there is anything conspicuous by its absence in The Myth of Natural Rights, it is an understanding of context.

Rollins went straight for the premises, and those he understood perfectly. Again, the 'absence of context argument' is only valid if the context-less quote would not be understandable. But Rollins is astute enough to avoid this mistake.

Lou is indeed a Stirnerite. This means that he could rob, rape, and/or murder you without any kind of moral impropriety whatsoever. (All values are "subjective," after all.) If this is the kind of intellectual company you wish to keep, be my guest.

The discussion here is not about Lou Rollins's list of alleged personal preferences, but about Rollins checking the premises of an argument. These are two separate issues which, if you mix them up, will only end in a muddle.

Although I don't usually recommend writings by Marx and Engels, I highly recommend their lengthy and scathing critique of "Saint Max" ("our German school-teacher") in The German Ideology. Marx and Engels took obvious delight in exposing the "delightful contradictions" of "our holy dialectician."

Quite ironic how the two believers in a Communist paradise on earth ridicule their ideological opponent by attaching labels like "Saint" and "holy" to him ...

In Marx/Engels versus Stirner, one can observe the creators of one fallacious thought system attacking the creator of another.

But one fallacy fighting another is not rare at all in the history of philosophy.

Lastly, stop quoting Lou Rollins as if he is some kind of authority on either Rand or natural rights.

Can't resist using Lou Rollins's argumentation again here:

LR would call your "stop" a mere metaphorical barrier which will no more stop your discussion partners from doing what you don't like than a metaphorical umbrella will stop you from getting wet when it rains. ;)

Edited November 26, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Could you please provide some illustrative quotes to back up this assertion of yours?

Here is one that took me all of 30 seconds to find on the Internet. "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Mencken believed, were sacred documents." See: http://www.menckenhouse.org/about/about_hlm.htm

The writer is not suggesting that Mencken, who was an atheist, viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights as religiously inspired. He means "sacred" in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable."

This usage is fairly common. If you want more examples, look them up yourself.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

LR would call your "stop" a mere metaphorical barrier which will no more stop your discussion partners from doing what you don't like than a metaphorical umbrella will stop you from getting wet when it rains. ;)

As I pointed out in my critical review of Lou's monograph, laws decreed by a government, which are the only laws that Lou considers to be real rather than metaphorical, don't prevent some people from violating them, either. So much for that argument.

I notice that you conveniently skipped over a question that I posed in an earlier post, namely: Do you, like Bentham and Rollins, also regard scientific "laws" as a metaphorical use of the word?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

And if there is anything conspicuous by its absence in The Myth of Natural Rights, it is an understanding of context.

Rollins went straight for the premises, and those he understood perfectly.

Lou knew very little about the natural law tradition. For example, he writes as if pre-Humean natural law philosophers were ignorant of the fact/value problem, whereas Aquinas and others addressed this issue specifically.

When you happen across a problem that you would hear from a first-semester philosophy student, you can bet your bottom dollar that it also occurred to many of the earlier philosophers who are being criticized. Over the past four decades, a lot of first-rate scholarly work has been produced on the natural law/natural rights tradition, especially by the "Cambridge School" of Quentin Skinner, Richard Tuck, James Tully, and others. Contrary to earlier treatments that dismissed this tradition as naive and simplistic, these detailed studies have revealed a school of thought that is far more sophisticated than was previously thought. I already knew this, having read many of the original sources first-hand, but Lou remained blissfully unaware.

An invaluable source is the Liberty Fund reprints of "Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics." . (In the drop down search menu for "Subject/Category," click on "Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics.")

If you don't want to purchase the volumes, the full texts are available online for free on a sister website of Liberty Fund, "The Online Library of Liberty" .

For anyone seriously interested in the natural law/natural rights tradition, these reprints are the most significant contribution of modern times. Books that were previously available only to a dedicated library mole, as I used to be, are now accessible for the price of a few keystrokes. Amazing....

Be sure to get back to me should you ever decide to educate yourself. That always beats guessing.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A sidebar for those who think that David Hume effectively killed the natural law tradition....

Many commentators have argued out that Hume, in his Is-Ought argument, was specifically attacking the rationalist wing of the natural law tradition (in contrast to the "sentimentalist" wing)-- most notably Samuel Clarke, but also philosophers such as William Wollaston. (I published an article on Wollaston many years ago, which is available here.)

A pioneering book on this subject, and perhaps the best book on Hume's moral and political theory ever written, is Duncan Forbes, Hume's Philosophical Politics. The same interpretation is given in one of the best books on the (modern) natural law tradition ever written, Stephen Buckle's Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume .

Hume certainly did not see himself as falling outside the natural law tradition, as he indicated in this passage from A Treatise of Human Nature (Selby-Bigge ed., p. 484).

To avoid giving offence, I must here observe that when I deny justice to be a natural virtue, I make use of the word, natural, only as opposed to artificial. In another sense of the word; as no principle of the human mind is more natural than a sense of justice; so no virtue is more natural than justice. Mankind is an inventive species; and where any invention is obvious and absolutely necessary, it may as properly be said to be natural as anything that proceeds immediately from original principles, without the intervention of thought or reflexion. Tho' the rules of justice be artificial , they are not arbitrary. Nor is the expression improper to call them Laws of Nature; if by natural we understand what is common to any species, or even if we confine it to mean what is inseparable from the species.

So misleading was Hume's use of "artificial" in the Treatise that he subsequently dropped the word from all his later work, including his Enquiries.

Ghs

[Xray]

They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Could you please provide some illustrative quotes to back up this assertion of yours?

Here is one that took me all of 30 seconds to find on the Internet. "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Mencken believed, were sacred documents." See: http://www.menckenhouse.org/about/about_hlm.htm

The writer is not suggesting that Mencken, who was an atheist, viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights as religiously inspired. He means "sacred" in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable."

This usage is fairly common. If you want more examples, look them up yourself.

Ghs

I'm not denying that this usage of sacred also exists, but in your original post, you wrote:

Moreover, when social theorists and anthropologists distinguish between the "sacred" and the "profane" in various cultures, they don't necessarily mean "sacred" in a religious sense. They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.

2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.

3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.

4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.

5. Worthy of respect; venerable.

6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred

So from all the meanings of "sacred", you picked one (# 5), claiming that this is what social theorists and anthropologists "usually" men when they distinguish between the he sacred and the profane. I doubt that this is the case In In case there are any anthropologists here, their input would be much appreciated.

As for Ayn, rand "man worship" is as clear as it can get. I suppose you will try to downplay it as well, asserting that when people speak of "worship", they merely mean "worthy of respect".

As I pointed out in my critical review of Lou's monograph, laws decreed by a government, which are the only laws that Lou considers to be real rather than metaphorical, don't prevent some people from violating them, either. So much for that argument.

This misses the point. It was not about people violating existent laws. It was about the proclaimers of imaginary laws and the holders of imaginary stop signs having no power at all. So when people violate real laws, or ignore real stop signs, they run the risk of getting into trouble. But the violators of imaginary laws or ignorers of imaginary stop signs run no risk at all.

I notice that you conveniently skipped over a question that I posed in an earlier post, namely: Do you, like Bentham and Rollins, also regard scientific "laws" as a metaphorical use of the word?

I did not "conveniently skip over" anything; you posted this on another thread and I did not have the time to reply, that's all. You can now read my reply on the "Rights" thread where you asked the question. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9395&pid=115425&st=40entry115425

Edited November 27, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

As I pointed out in my critical review of Lou's monograph, laws decreed by a government, which are the only laws that Lou considers to be real rather than metaphorical, don't prevent some people from violating them, either. So much for that argument.

This misses the point.

Not if you understand the argument that Lou was making. As Lou wrote in "A Reply to My Reviewers" (New Libertarian, 1985): "Perhaps Smith is to some extent correct about the deterrent effect of sincere belief in 'moral law'...."

It was not about people violating existent laws. It was about the proclaimers of imaginary laws and the holders of imaginary stop signs having no power at all. So when people violate real laws, or ignore real stop signs, they run the risk of getting into trouble. But the violators of imaginary laws or ignorers of imaginary stop signs run no risk at all.

As I pointed out in my critique of Lou's monograph, moral principles frequently do restrain people from acting in certain ways. Why do you think think most people don't rob, rape, and murder? They refrain because they believe such actions are wrong, not because they are afraid of getting caught and punished.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

This is a note about Rand's use of "sacred." She was very clear what she meant by the word, as we find in this passage from "Requiem for Man":

If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as "sacred"—meaning: the best, the highest possible to man—this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone. {My italics.)

Here is a similar passage from The Fountainhead:

Our greatest moments are personal, self-motivated, not to be touched. The things which are sacred or precious to us are the things we withdraw from promiscuous sharing. (My italics.)

From Rand's Journals:

Most people lack [the capacity for] reverence and taking things seriously. They do not hold anything to be very serious or profound. There is nothing that is sacred or immensely important to them. There is nothing—no idea, object, work, or person—that can inspire them with a profound, intense, and all-absorbing passion that reaches to the roots of their souls. (My italics.)

That Xray keeps harping on this issue in an attempt to make Rand out to be some kind of quasi-religious figure, while making no serious effort to understand what she meant, is merely another example of Xray's intellectual dishonesty.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

Could you please provide some illustrative quotes to back up this assertion of yours?

Here is one that took me all of 30 seconds to find on the Internet. "The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Mencken believed, were sacred documents." See: http://www.menckenhouse.org/about/about_hlm.htm

The writer is not suggesting that Mencken, who was an atheist, viewed the Constitution and Bill of Rights as religiously inspired. He means "sacred" in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable."

This usage is fairly common. If you want more examples, look them up yourself.

Ghs

I'm not denying that this usage of sacred also exists, but in your original post, you wrote:

Moreover, when social theorists and anthropologists distinguish between the "sacred" and the "profane" in various cultures, they don't necessarily mean "sacred" in a religious sense. They usually mean it in the sense of "worthy of respect; venerable" (American Heritage Dictionary).

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.

2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.

3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.

4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.

5. Worthy of respect; venerable.

6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sacred

So from all the meanings of "sacred", you picked one (# 5), claiming that this is what social theorists and anthropologists "usually" men when they distinguish between the he sacred and the profane. I doubt that this is the case In In case there are any anthropologists here, their input would be much appreciated.

My choice of the word "usually" was ill-advised. "Sometimes" would have been more accurate. As the esteemed sociologist Robert Nisbet wrote in The Social Bond (1970, p. 234):

Characteristically, sacred norms are the components of religions, and it is largely in their religious manifestation that they will be considered in this section. But before turning to religion and its role in the social order, it is well to be reminded that literally any idea, belief, practice, or material thing can be, in some degree at least, sacred. There is a certain element of the sacred in the devotion alumni may give to the numbered jersey of some legendary football player, such as Ernie Nevers at Stanford or Red Grange at Illinois or Albie Booth at Yale. So, too, is the rapt attention given by baseball fans to the bat of Babe Ruth or the glove of Ty Cobb at the Hall of Fame Museum in Cooperstown. (Etc., Etc.)

As for Ayn, rand "man worship" is as clear as it can get. I suppose you will try to downplay it as well, asserting that when people speak of "worship", they merely mean "worthy of respect".

Rand's meaning is quite clear, if you bother to read it in context. Here is the passage from the Introduction to the 25th Anniversary edition of The Fountainhead. I have added some italics for emphasis.

Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life. Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach. "Exaltation" is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. "Worship" means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. "Reverence" means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one's knees. "Sacred" means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.

It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship.

Do not confuse "man-worship" with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion....

The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it.

What part of this don't you understand?

Let me guess: You read only the snippet quoted out of context by Rollins without reading the entire passage. Right?

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

There are many pathways toward experiencing existence at a more, what. . .elegant, deeper level? I understand and agree with what George is saying about what is sacred. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and when talking about the word "sacred," for the most part bringing up Rand's writing about it would be met with resounding agreement.

We have atheists in our tradition--many of them, and when someone is giving a sermon, or what have you, and says something including a phrase like "all that is sacred," or "all that is Holy," that is not a problem due to its, uh "possible religious origin," something like that. Sacred is sacred. Not to be touched. It is about reverence, which is something that is a higher quality, a cultivated quality.

Lots of pathways, lots of stuff around. The Transcendentalists, James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience," Eastern writing. Rand. Gurdjieff's "Views From The Real World....."

Pulling at it and picking at it doesn't matter a lick. Sacred does not require bended knees (but sometimes you might feel like doing that). Sacred takes you to joy, to love.

I don't know why X-Ray went this way with George. Can't make a lick of sense out of it.

rde

PS: Again to mention, there is a lot to ponder in James' VORE--it holds up pretty well for 1902. Here is a well-organized online resource with links to the topics, for those that would like to jump into it here and there: http://www.psychwww....g/james/toc.htm

I know this large work pretty well, and I have my favorite nuggets, but maybe "futility of simple definitions of religion" might be good: http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/james3.htm#26

Edited November 27, 2010 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

We have atheists in our tradition--many of them, and when someone is giving a sermon, or what have you, and says something including a phrase like "all that is sacred," or "all that is Holy," that is not a problem due to its, uh "possible religious origin," something like that. Sacred is sacred. Not to be touched. It is about reverence, which is something that is a higher quality, a cultivated quality.

Lots of pathways, lots of stuff around. The Transcendentalists, James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience," Eastern writing. Rand. Gurdjieff's "Views From The Real World....."

Pulling at it and picking at it doesn't matter a lick. Sacred does not require bended knees (but sometimes you might feel like doing that). Sacred takes you to joy, to love.

The sociologist Howard Becker has an interesting discussion of "sacred" in Social Thought From Lore to Science (Dover, 1961, vol. 2, pp. 3ff of the Appendix, "Commentary of Value-System Terminology"). Here is part of what he says:

Let us begin with the concept of the sacred. This is quite comprehensive, taking in as it does far more and other than religion, for example, in any customary sense....[T]he concept of the sacred comprises much that religion has never fully included. It is therefore advisable to use sacred as the general term and religion and its equivalents as only one aspect thereof.

It follows that sacred and secular are by no means synonymous with holy and profane. This is one of the most frequent errors, and is chiefly the result of failure to consult original sources or lack of attention to finer shades of meaning in ordinary English.

...Consulting another Webster source, we find this: "In...general [italics ours] use, sacred applies chiefly to that which one treasures as a thing apart, not to be violated or contaminated by being put to vulgar or low uses or associated with vulgar or low ends," Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, 1st ed. (1942), p. 145.

Again from the same Webster source: "Sacred as meaning having such a character that it is protected by law, custom, tradition, human respect, or the like, against breach, intrusion, defilement....Sacred implies either a setting apart for a special and, often, exclusive use or end (as, among civilized peoples, property is regarded as sacred to its owner; a fund sacred to charity...."

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I don't know why X-Ray went this way with George. Can't make a lick of sense out of it.

So what else is new?

Discussions like this could actually be interesting and productive if Xray didn't approach them with her "nail Rand at any cost, reasonableness be damned" frame of mind.

Ghs

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Jonathan,

When people work through ideas, it's often a messy process. (It certainly is with me.)

I prefer to let folks work through their own thinking than to tell them what they have to think. We start with Objectivism, but then it's on each person to do his/her own thinking.

In other words, I'm not big on preaching.

That's why there is such a variety here.

Don't worry. If people go overboard and start gumming up the forum with sermonizing on this viewpoint or that (or playing intimidation games, etc.), I take steps to reestablish balance. I don't want anyone muted except nasty folks like trolls, but I don't want the religiosity in attitude of anyone to overrun the forum, either.

Also, I think it is great to be able to answer the best criticisms that can be thrown at Objectivist ideas. Then you know for sure that the ones that stand are solid. And the ones that don't shouldn't be adopted in the first place.

The only way to do that is to engage other viewpoints fairly. I'm not perfect at keeping this kind of environment going, but from looking at the results, I do a pretty good job.

Michael

Thanks for the clarification. I find that everyone I've encountered on the site so far seems to be interesting, altruist mystics though they might be.

[anthony]

I don't know why X-Ray went this way with George. Can't make a lick of sense out of it.

So what else is new?

Discussions like this could actually be interesting and productive if Xray didn't approach them with her "nail Rand at any cost, reasonableness be damned" frame of mind.

Ghs

Yes, "approach" is the word. One can either chip away at the bark on a tree, or stand back and see the forest. If something within you hates the messenger, you are going to hate the message, and try to destroy everything sacred in it.

Then you are going to be logical, without being rational, or reasonable, for that matter.

I think it was Ghs who coined "charity" when it comes to approaching Rand. Not meant in the one sense of making special allowance for her - that's the last thing her work needs - but of reading her on her own terms, with good will, and absorbing her complete picture.

And, only then, quibbling over the details.

Tony

[Xray]

In Xray's case, she confesses she cannot express in her own words what a stolen concept is, or why it is important.

I'm interested in getting a link reading to that alleged "confession" of mine - could it be that you have misunderstood something? I recall making some satirical comments about the term 'stolen concept' because it sounds so 'dramatic'. "The mystery of the stolen concept" how's that for a title of an Objectivist detective story" - it was some comic relief stuff along that line which I wrote.

I am perfectly able though to express in my own words what what Rand meant by "stolen concept". It's quite simple actually.

Example: "The truth is: there is no truth".

Rand would call "truth" a "stolen" concept since the speaker employs in his argumentation a term ("truth") referring to a concept, the validity of which he wants to deny.

This contradiction collapses the speaker's own argument.

Another example:

Philosophers A and B are sitting at table, having a dicussion about the validity of the senses.

A: "Sensory perception is treacherous - totally deceiving!"

Some minutes later, B gives A under the table a kick on the shins.

A: "Ouch!"

B: "What is it?"

A: "You just kicked me!"

B: "How do you know?"

A: "What a question! I could distinctly feel the impact!"

A uses sensory perception as evidence, the validity of which he denied a few moments before.

But I don't think "stolen" is an apt term, not even metaphorically.

For on closer examination, the so-called "stolen" concept reveals itself as a concept which the person has not succeeded in getting rid of, has not succeeded in jettisoning - so it is anything but stolen. On the contrary, it is still resides in the mind, sticking there obstinately.

So the stolen concept is actually a sticky concept.

As I pointed out in my critique of Lou's monograph, moral principles frequently do restrain people from acting in certain ways. Why do you think think most people don't rob, rape, and murder? They refrain because they believe such actions are wrong, not because they are afraid of getting caught and punished.

I did not really take seriously Lou's exaggerating polemical statements like "Murder is impractical" and think of these passages as the weakest part in the book. [The Myth of Natural Rights]. Even for a book which has a very polemic tone in general, this is simply too much for the reader to bear.

Should this be Lou Rollins's real opinion, then this would reveal an alarming lack of empathy on his part, and if that is the case, then this lack will manifest itself in other parts of his life as well.

As I pointed out in my critique of Lou's monograph, moral principles frequently do restrain people from acting in certain ways.

No objection from me here. But the violation of moral principles often does have legal consequences as well (because moral principles can be the basis of laws).

As for the violaton of those moral principles not having legal consequences (like e. g. adultery in our Western culture), it seems that people violate those more often that the ones which are considered to be criminal acts.

What further complicates matters: the laws of various countries can differ considerably when it comes to classifying the violation of moral principles as criminal acts. I was surprised to learn that prostitution (the purchase of the sexual services, not their selling) is now forbidden in a country like Sweden.

How "moral" is the human individual? How is conscience formed? It is obviously the result of a learning process, and if people refrain from certain acts because they think of them as morally wrong, it shows once again the powerful impact which group rules have to the social animal "man". Empathy plays a crucial role as well.

As for Ayn Rand, the lack of empathy most of her heroes and heroines have can hardly be missed. Just think of a character like Howard Roark.

I believe Rand herself had problems with feeling empathy, and that this showed in her philosophy, her fiction, and her life.

I vaguely recall having read a while ago that Rand may have had Asperger's, but don't remember where I read this. I just googled 'Ayn Rand' and 'Asperger' and got some links. Here is an excerpt from a blog:

http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2009/11/ayn-rand.html

From "Clarissa's blog":

"From what little I have been able to read from Heller's biography, it has already become clear to me that Rand must have had an exceptionally strong form of Asperger's. (Many of the things that seem to baffle her biographers become perfectly understandable once you think of them in terms of Asperger's.)"

Again, I have no idea how reliable this source is, and also know next to nothing about Asperger's (aside from what Ba'al Chatzaf told us here), therefore more info would appreciated for clarification.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

In Xray's case, she confesses she cannot express in her own words what a stolen concept is, or why it is important.

[snip]

I am perfectly able though to express in my own words what what Rand meant by "stolen concept". It's quite simple actually.

Example: "The truth is: there is no truth".

Xray proves Ted is correct. Her example is a contradiction, not a stolen concept.

[Rich Engle]

GHS--

Thanks for that information on defining "sacred."

I guess now I'm interested in the experiential vs. concrete aspects of it. A chicken or the egg thing, maybe? I tend to go with what you have there. On the other hand, there are some things James talks about that are interesting, and I have seen examples of it.

He talks about people that are "once born," and "twice born." I have to zoom on that but here's some of it I plucked:

Taking up a terminology he had first mentioned in a earlier lecture [p 80], James refers to those with a healthy-minded attitude as the "once-born" and those with the alternative as the "twice-born". He offers a chronology and a parallel evaluation which makes the former earlier and inferior to the latter.The once-born

The writer distinguishes three stages among the once-born. First, there was "man's primitive intoxication with sense-happiness" [p 143]. Then there came ancient Greek Epicurianism and Stoicism:

"Stoic insensibility and Epicurean resignation were the farthest advance that the Greek mind made ... " [p 143].

The twice-born

Finally, there came the great religions of the twice-born:

"[The Greeks] knew no joys comparable to those which we shall erelong see that Brahmans, Buddhists, Christians, Mohammedans, twice-born people whose religion is non-naturalistic, get from their several creeds of mysticism and renunciation." [p 143]

And again:

"Compared with the complex ecstasies which the supernaturally regenerated Christian may enjoy, or the oriental pantheist indulge in, [Epicurian and Stoic] receipts for equanimity are expedients which seem almost crude in their simplicity." [p 144]

Profound depression in the twice-born

James now begins his exploration of the links between religious experience and mental abnormality by associating the twice-born with pathological depression. He finds that for profound depression to lead to significant religious experience, it must be accompanied by a powerful desire to make sense of things.

His prime example here is Leo Tolstoy. James explains that the Russian novelist's successful effort to restore himself to mental health led to more than a return to his original condition. The twice-born reach a new and higher plane:

"The process is one of redemption, not of mere reversion to natural health, and the sufferer, when saved, is saved by what seems to him a second birth, a deeper kind of conscious being than he could enjoy before." [p 157]

Another case explored at length by James is that of John Bunyan. The author of The Pilgrim's Progress differed from Tolstoy in that his depression focused on himself as worthless rather than on the world as meaningless.

I don't know, GHS, I'm just re-mining a little for myself.