Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

rameshkaimal

Regulars
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rameshkaimal

  1. In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff describes friendship as a human relationship, involving mutual knowledge, esteem, and affection, as a result of which, the persons therein take pleasure in each other's company, communicate with a high degree of intimacy, and display mutual benevolence, each sincerely wishing the other well. The emotions that a (rational) man feels towards his lover are not the same as the ones he feels for a friend, including a female one. Even with respect to common emotions such as affection, the degree of intensity involved is much greater in a love relationship than in a friendship. And the motives related to behavior in the former are not the same as the ones related to behavior in the latter. In other words, being friendly with someone when one's in love with someone else, will not invariably lead one to value the friend, in the same way and to the same degree that one values one's lover. So if a (rational) man, who's already romantically attached, is also friendly with another (rational) woman, as long as his behavior towards her (in reality) and the motives (in his own mind) which cause such behavior, are consistent with the essential aspects of a friendship as described in OPAR, how and why would his friendship with her threaten his relationship with his lover?
  2. Inspector, Yes, I was using the same example Dr. Peikoff gave in the Love, Sex and Romance Q & A. In the tape, Dr. Peikoff does say that though there's nothing wrong with the woman having 2 lovers, she would have to eventually choose which one's her top value, since no 2 individuals are so alike in every respect that they both become one's top value.
  3. Why can't one be in love with more than one person at a time? Consider the following example: A man and a woman love each other deeply and get married. Then there's a war and the husband enlists. Later, the woman's informed he's missing in action. The woman's completely devastated but gradually recovers from the tragedy. After some time, she meets another man and falls in love with him. Meanwhile, her (presumably dead) husband comes back after escaping from a POW camp in enemy territory. Now there are 2 men in her life and she finds she's in love with both of them at the same time. And both men are able to fully understand why she can't even imagine giving up either one of them for the sake of the other. So, is there anything in reality/about Man (discovered/validated by philosophy/psychology) that says she cannot/should not have the 2 men in her life?
  4. Once upon a time, there was a boy who loved to read Ayn Rand's novels. He was so much 'into it' that in order to 'ascertain' whether a female acquaintance of his was 'date-worthy', he decided to give her an 'open-book test' on The Fountainhead. The test contained a list of questions about the novel's plot and the test-taker was allowed to refer to the novel to find the correct answer. Unfortunately, during the test, while the girl was going through the novel to answer a specific question, she became so engrossed in one of its passages that she completely forgot about the stupid test! When the boy politely (always the perfect gentleman) tried to remind her about his test, she came out of her 'reading reverie', informed him that she was borrowing the novel, and went home to read it at her leisure!! Later, while chatting with his buddies, he said he had learnt one valuable 'lesson' from this 'horrible' experience: Never hold an 'open book test' on Ayn Rand's novels. A 'closed book test', maybe, but definitely not an 'open book' one.
  5. Hello AisA, Bravo! The above is one of the best posts (in content, structure & style) in defense of a woman's right to abortion I have read in a long time. Thanks and regards, Ramesh
  6. The idea of open immigration is implicitly based on the (ethical) generalization that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men. So it makes no sense to say that allowing people living in other countries (who respect rights), to openly migrate to America, a nation founded on the inalienable rights of Man, leads to an inherent conflict of economic, political and cultural interests between Americans-by-birth and Americans-by-choice respectively. Furthermore, the economic, political and cultural nature of America is not determined by the number of people who migrate to this country but by the fundamental ideas they hold in their lives. As long as the migrants hold the right ideas, they're a threat to no American, whether native or alien. But if they hold the wrong ideas and their practice does not violate the rights of any American, the battle against those ideas should be fought (and ultimately won) in the intellectual realm by those who hold the right ideas. In case their practice does violate rights, it's the moral responsibility of the American Government to enforce the rights of the victims of such violation. When the American government restricts open immigration because there's an alleged 'risk' of people who hold the 'wrong' ideas entering the country and 'eroding' its economics, politics and culture, what such a policy leads to, in practice, is the state dictating, which ideas an alien can or cannot hold, to be allowed entry into, and residence in, the country of his choice. Once the principle of total separation of state and intellect is abandoned in the case of aliens, there's nothing to prevent the government from eventually dictating, which ideas natives can or cannot hold, to be allowed to live in the country of their birth.
  7. Since Man's a living entity with two basic attributes namely, body and mind, a child's rights are derived from its physical and mental needs respectively. So just as a child's physical health can be endangered by the irrational actions of its parents, likewise its mental health can also be endangered by such actions. In either case, if the state intervenes, it's penalizing the actions of the parents that adversely affect the child's well-being, and not the ideas that cause the parents to act irrationally in the first place. So one could (plausibly) argue that if the child suffers severe psychological trauma as a result of the repeated attempts by overtly religious parents to intimidate it with scare stories about "Hell", "Eternal Damnation", etc. and the damage's (objectively) provable in a court of law (in which case, their actions would, in the mental realm, be the equivalent of not just depriving it of food but actively feeding it poison instead) then the government can take the child away from its parents and put it in a foster home or private orphanage (willing to take the child in) where it's not subject to such trauma.
  8. The real question here is: if parents impart irrational ideas (like religion) to their children, how does it violate the child’s rights? If a child’s rights are being violated by its parents' actions, the government should take the child away from its parents (and take legal action against them) since the purpose of a government is to protect individual rights as such. So the conclusion that the government should ban parents from imparting religious doctrines to their children is valid only if one can properly prove such an action violates the child's rights in some way. I don't see how raising a child to believe in false ideas is, per se, a violation of its rights regardless of whether the child later, becomes a passive adult who blindly practices those beliefs. Besides, parents have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and values. So as long as they are not directly violating their child’s rights (say, by compelling it to go on a long religious fast and depriving it of food, as a consequence), it's the parents' rights that get violated when the government starts dictating what they can or cannot impart to their children. Of course, if the parents are inciting the child to commit violence against others in the name of their religion, and the child somehow assaults someone as a result, the government should hold the parents legally responsible for their child's actions. In that case, even before the child actually commits assault, the government can separate the child from its parents and put it in a foster home or private orphanage (willing to take the child in) so that its parents can no longer influence it to violate the rights of others.
  9. Hello all, The choice to focus precedes every other choice Man can make. It precedes even human motives such as the desire to live because what one desires depends on one's values and one cannot value anything including one's life unless one's in focus. Besides, if one's not in focus, how would one know what one's desires or values are? Once one's in focus, one can then choose to live by discovering the things one's life requires and taking the actions necessary to obtain them. As an example, even a caveman makes the choice to live by realizing meat can satisfy his hunger and hunting wild animals for food. In other words, the choice to live involves choosing not only to know the requirements of one's life but also to do the things to meet those requirements. But one can't really make this choice if one's not already in focus. A person could first choose to focus and discover the things his life requires. But if, after doing that, he chooses to evade what he knows about them by not doing what he should do to obtain them, he's clearly failing to make the choice to live. Regards, Ramesh Kaimal
  10. Hello all, In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff discusses 2 meta choices, namely, the choice to focus and the choice to live. The first is a primary choice in epistemology because it precedes all thought and the second is a primary choice in ethics because it precedes all action. So I was wondering whether these 2 choices are really 2 different perspectives on one and the same choice. In other words, is the choice to live implicit in the choice to focus and vice versa? Or does the choice to focus (hierarchically) precede the choice to live? Regards, Ramesh Kaimal
  11. Hello all, In his latest podcast, Dr. Peikoff states in answer to a question that there is a difference between loving someone with whom one is having sex and rationally valuing someone with whom one is having sex. He says in the first case, you are holding the person as an irreplaceable value and in the second case, you are holding the person as a high rational value. So I was wondering in the second case, what emotion would one be feeling if one was holding someone as a high rational value and having sex with the person? Can it be called (romantic) love if the person is not yet an irreplaceable value, only a high (rational) value? Or is it still love but not of the same intensity as the love one feels when the person is an irreplaceable value? Regards, Ramesh Kaimal
  12. The following is a quote from the hyperlink: Why does Dagny shoot the guard? The straightforward answer is that she shot him because he was preventing her from freeing Galt from the torture chamber. Some readers, however, are disturbed by Dagny's actions because she shows no reluctance or remorse for killing the guard. Others ask whether her actions should be considered an "initiation of force," which (Miss) Rand elsewhere says is immoral. To evaluate these issues, the scene (which can be read here) should be considered as a whole and within its context in the novel. Dagny does not simply walk up and shoot the guard. Initially she tries to trick him into letting her pass by claiming she has orders from a senior official. The guard is uncertain what to do, because he has conflicting orders and doesn't want to decide for himself. Dagny only pulls out a gun when he says he is going to alert his supervisor of her presence. Then she threatens him, but even under threat he refuses to take any sort of personal responsibility, even for saving his own life. Only after several exchanges where he refuses to make a decision (but continues to block the door), does Dagny finally shoot him. In these circumstances, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Dagny should show any further reluctance or remorse, since she has already given him several chances. As to whether an initiation of force is involved, the placement of the scene in the novel makes it clear that Dagny is acting in protection of John Galt. Galt is imprisoned and has been tortured. Moreover, by this point in the story, the oppressive and immoral nature of the government that is holding Galt has been made clear. Numerous people have heeded Galt's call and joined the strike. The guard, however, is still there. He not only hasn't quit, he is actively helping keep Galt prisoner. In that context, it is clearly acceptable within (Miss) Rand's moral views for Dagny to use force against the guard as part of the rescue of Galt. (Miss) Rand would consider this a defensive, rather than aggressive, use of force.
  13. Hello Kevin, I'm trying to understand the basic difference between choosing not to focus and choosing to evade i.e., between the concept of non-focus and the concept of evasion. So, given your example above, if a person chooses to pull the covers over his head and go back to sleep, wouldn't he be evading his own (perceptual) knowledge? In that case, what would be the essential difference between choosing not to focus and choosing to evade? Regards, Ramesh Kaimal
  14. Why an efficient cause does not apply to the primary choice to focus or not The primary choice to focus is nothing but the decision to activate one's conceptual faculty. Such a choice requires mental effort. If it required no effort at all, then every (normal) member of the human species would invariably make it. But in fact, they don't. Just as a person who has a car, has to exert some physical effort to turn on the ignition, so also a person who has a conceptual faculty, has to exert some mental effort to focus his mind. So, in order to default on such a choice, all that is required is for one to exert no effort at all, that is, to remain inactive as far as one's conceptual faculty is concerned. (NOTE: This is not the same thing as actively subverting one's mental content or evading.) This means that it does not take effort to exert no effort at all. To say that it takes effort to exert no effort is a self-contradiction. It is like saying one recognizes property rights when one steals. So in one sense, such a default is really not a choice but the failure to make a choice that is in accordance with one's nature. But in another sense, since one is free not to make this basic choice, its default is still possible in reality, though it is not a valid alternative at all. If it were not possible, there wouldn't be a single member of the human species who failed in this respect, to begin with. This is why the primary choice to focus or not, is free, that is, the concept of "why" (or cause) is not applicable to it. Why a final cause does not apply to the primary choice to focus or not In order for Man to have a reason (which is held in his own mind) for doing anything, he would have to first identify a logical relationship between certain facts of reality (the 'is'), and the action itself (the 'ought'). In other words, the concept of "what for" (or purpose), establishes a proper link between Man's cognitive abstractions and his normative abstractions i.e., between FACT and VALUE. But this very process of establishing such a link requires that the mind be in focus. In other words, if the mind is not in focus, the process itself would not be possible in the first place. So, if a "what for" is applicable to the primary choice to focus or not, it would mean that some content already exists in the mind even before it chooses to focus, which action alone is the first step towards acquiring any content, to begin with. In other words, it would mean that there is some content in the mind even before it has acquired any content at all. This is why the concept of "what for" (or purpose) is not applicable to the primary choice to focus or not. The basic difference between the concepts of non-focus and evasion Consciousness by its very nature, involves being in some state of awareness as such. In other words, there is no such thing as a person who is conscious but in whose mind there is absolutely no state of awareness at all. Given this fact, if a certain state of awareness (which may not necessarily mean full focus) is objectively required in a particular context, then choosing to remain below the required level is tantamount to choosing to be out of focus, if one does not care to know what state of awareness is objectively required in this context. On the other hand, if a person does know (whether implicitly or explicitly) that a certain state of awareness (which may not necessarily mean full focus) is objectively required in a particular context, and yet chooses to remain below the required level, it would be tantamount to choosing to evade one's knowledge in this regard. In other words, in the first case, it is non-focus or a non-focal state of awareness, in the second case, it is evasion or an evasive state of awareness. Ramesh Kaimal
  15. From what immutable facts of reality has this definition (or meaning) been induced? In other words, this definition (or meaning) pre-supposes that one has already identified an attribute in subatomic particles that is essentially different from the attribute of volition in Man. If so, what is that attribute and where is the evidence in reality for inferring its existence? Besides, the phrase "without the use of volition" cannot mean that one has already proved that subatomic particles do not possess volition because there is no such thing in reason and in reality, as proving a negative. Ramesh Kaimal
  16. 1. Firstly, philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of reality, of Man, and of Man's relationship to reality (from Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand). So it is the only science in human knowledge that deals with the broadest abstractions possible. In other words, none of the special sciences (be it the physical or the social sciences) deal with the most fundamental truths because they study only specific aspects of reality or of Man. So philosophy is not similar to mathematics (which is a science of method that formulates quantitative tools like Calculus) or physics (which studies the physical nature of the universe and the physical principles that govern it, as for example, the law of gravity). Given the above, once a fundamental truth is discovered in philosophy, regardless of who discovers it, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge about anything in reality that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of that fundamental truth. Therefore, the contextual nature of knowledge which applies to truths discovered in the special sciences, does not apply at all to the fundamental truths discovered in philosophy. 2. Secondly, philosophy, given the above definition, will always contain only the following five branches: a. Metaphysics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern reality, b. Epistemology, which studies the fundamental principles that govern reason, which is Man's only means of gaining knowledge, c. Ethics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern Man's choices and actions in the pursuit of values, d. Politics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern a proper social system, e. Esthetics, which studies the fundamental principles that govern art. This means that there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge about anything in reality that will necessitate the addition of a new branch to the already existing five branches. If new branches are ever added, they will be under one or more of the five branches. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that Man can discover by way of new knowledge in a new sub-branch that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of any fundamental truth discovered in the corresponding main branch. This is because any truth discovered in a sub-branch must necessarily be consistent with the fundamental truths that were already discovered in the corresponding main branch. 3. Thirdly, during her lifetime, Ayn Rand formulated a complete philosophical system and called it Objectivism. This means that Miss Rand discovered fundamental truths in each one of the five branches of philosophy, (which is a common noun) and integrated these truths to formulate her own philosophy to which she gave a specific name, namely, Objectivism (which is, therefore, a proper noun). Given the above, there is absolutely nothing (emphasis added) that any Objectivist intellectual can discover by way of new knowledge in the science of philosophy and/or psychology that will necessitate either a revision or a rejection of any of the fundamental truths that constitute Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Given all of the above, the word "Objectivism" properly refers to the complete philosophical system formulated by Ayn Rand that contains the fundamental truths that she discovered in each one of the five branches of philosophy. It refers to nothing more and nothing less and is, therefore, closed. To conclude, when it comes to the fundamental truths that constitute Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, it is only when one has objectively identified them as true by the independent judgment of one's own mind that one can be in complete agreement with her philosophy. Nothing more is required and nothing less will do. Ergo, an Objectivist is one who is objective (emphasis added) about Objectivism. Such an individual is neither a cultist nor a dogmatist. Ramesh Kaimal
  17. Mr. Sciabarra says: "If we abstract from this discussion any consideration of Rand's or Churchill's or even Bin Laden's philosophical or political positions, if we abstract from this discussion any consideration of the lives and/or broader ideological commitments of these individuals, I find no way of avoiding the implication of comparability." This is like saying that if we abstract the fundamental differences between: 1. an Objectivist, who is against murder because it violates the right to life, and 2. a theist, who is against murder because only "God", and not Man, can take away life, and 3. a leftist, who is against murder because it is an anti-social act against the "Collective" of which the victim and the killer are mere "cogs", there is absolutely no difference in their common conclusion that it is immoral to commit murder! When a human mind reaches a conclusion about anything at all, it does so, on the basis of certain ideas or premises without which no such conclusion would even be possible, in the first place. So, if one is rational, which necessarily means, one is intellectually honest, one will invariably focus on the intellectual context that causes a mind to come to a certain conclusion, instead of blanking out such a context and arbitrarily treating the conclusion as no different from the same conclusion reached by others who hold a diametrically opposite context. Ramesh Kaimal
  18. The Nature of Government Firstly, a government is, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, an agency that has the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area, for the moral purpose of protecting individual rights. Secondly, since Man is conceptual by nature, an individual must, if he wants to live in reality, practice the moral principle of objectivity. This means that when it comes to using concepts, he must focus on what they mean objectively, and not what they mean subjectively, regardless of whether the subjectivism is personal or collective. Thirdly, just as the moral principle of objectivity should be followed by individual men, it should also be followed by man-made institutions such as the government or a corporation, since these entities exist in the same reality as Man. In other words, just because the government has a legal monopoly over the use of physical force, reality is not going to "meekly comply", if and when the government "points" a gun at it! So when it comes to the concepts that form the basis for the rules and regulations of a free society, unless and until the government (which means, its functionaries, including the lawmakers, without whom it cannot function at all) focuses on what those concepts objectively mean, and not what the people (or some group) want them to mean, there is no way it can practically protect individual rights as such. This means that in a free society, when the government declares that a concept will, hereafter, mean what a given group of people want it to mean, and not what it objectively means, it is forcing those individuals who do practice the principle of objectivity in their lives by using concepts objectively, to blindly accept what the government has decreed (emphasis added) as the new meaning of a concept. So, then what happens to the rights of those individuals who are being asked, at the point of a gun, to give up the judgment of their own minds in this regard? To conclude, in a free society, just as there should be proper separation of state and religion, there should not only be proper separation of state and economics but also proper separation of state and epistemology. The Nature of Marriage A marriage is, to paraphrase Dr. Leonard Peikoff, a public declaration by a man and a woman to society that they are morally committing themselves to a lifetime union, and should therefore be considered as a single social unit. Since they are also legally committing themselves to a lifetime union, the marriage is also properly considered as a legal unit. A legal entity as such, can only be brought into existence by the state, and hence, it is necessarily involved in sanctioning the marriage, thereby granting the status of husband and wife to the man and the woman respectively, who constitute such a unit. So, if the gay community honestly want the government to recognize a contract between two consenting homosexuals for living together as a gay couple, they are free to come up with a totally new concept that is their moral-legal equivalent for the concept of a marriage, which, given its objective meaning, as mentioned above, can only involve, in reason and in reality, a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman respectively. To conclude, if the government subverts the objective meaning of one concept today, it will do the same thing with some other concept tomorrow, and before you know it, it will end up subverting the objective meaning of every concept that forms the basis for the rules and regulations of a free society. Once the moral principle of objectivity itself, is abandoned by the government, how long will such a society remain free? Ramesh Kaimal
×
×
  • Create New...