Other writers on Eudaimonia, Ethical Egoism?

[Betsy]

If we're throwing in fiction for the rational egoist, I would be remiss not to mention Robert A Heinlein. He gets a bit nutty at times, though.

He's been mentioned on this board -- especially by me. Do a search for "Heinlein."

[iouswuoibev]

I've just started the series myself, have only read the first novel, and think that the Objectivist influence is already bloody obvious (though not entirely consistent) from the start, particularly in the political themes.  For instance, remember the scene in which Queen Milena's court brings in the "fool," ridiculing him as selfish for not wanting to work for the public good.

I think he does play more to the general audience in his earlier books. I recall in Wizard's First Rule a scene where Kahlan remarks that she "never knew Giller capable of such a selfless act." That word appears a few more times in a way that denotes virtuous qualities. He stops using that word around book 3.

[AshRyan]

I think he does play more to the general audience in his earlier books. I recall in Wizard's First Rule a scene where Kahlan remarks that she "never knew Giller capable of such a selfless act." That word appears a few more times in a way that denotes virtuous qualities. He stops using that word around book 3.

That's true--which is why I said that, although I thought the influence was obvious from the start, it was inconsistent. And the line you cited is not the worst of it--at the end, he actually goes so far as to say that the villain's problem is that he is too "selfish." But as I mentioned, there are other parts of the story where he defends rational selfishness, and shows collectivism to be the horror it is. And I am sure that the later books do get progressively better. I am looking forward to reading them. (Still on the second one at this point.)

[BlueWind]

That's true--which is why I said that, although I thought the influence was obvious from the start, it was inconsistent.  And the line you cited is not the worst of it--at the end, he actually goes so far as to say that the villain's problem is that he is too "selfish."  But as I mentioned, there are other parts of the story where he defends rational selfishness, and shows collectivism to be the horror it is.  And I am sure that the later books do get progressively better.  I am looking forward to reading them.  (Still on the second one at this point.)

I just finished WFR and I'm not sure if he's inconsistant as much as he's having difficulty trying to express what he means in "normal" terms. For normal people "selfishness" is always a bad thing and easily labled as such. Unfortunetly there is no real good english word for "good selfishness" v. "bad selfishness".

When I try and explain "rational selfishness" to normal people I ususally give the example of pride .v hubris. Most people understand the difference and can start to go from there to understanding the differnce between "selfishness" and "rational selfishness".

Does anyone know of one word (english or otherwise) that would express the idea behind Rand's "selfishness" ?? Aristotle's virtues of Temperance and Generosity taken together would seem to point in the correct direction, but I've never found just one word for it.

[AshRyan]

I just finished WFR and I'm not sure if he's inconsistant as much as he's having difficulty trying to express what he means in "normal" terms.  For normal people "selfishness" is always a bad thing and easily labled as such.  Unfortunetly there is no real good english word for "good selfishness" v. "bad selfishness".

Sure, but instead of saying that Darken Rahl is "selfish," equating that term with "evil" and adding to the confusion about the issue, why not just say that he's a power-luster (or something along those lines)? Granted, many of his readers will take that to mean the same thing as "selfish," but then at least the error will be theirs and not his.

[Sesklo]

A critique and a few warnings about looking for Objectivism in other literature.

On Goodkind's series: I thought this was okay, but he really lost me with the last one. I got sick of all the rape/attempted rape scenes in every book, and Jensen or whatever her name was REALLY got on my nerves. "Riiiichaarddd, Iiiii'm stuuuuuck!... Riiiichaaaardd, Iiii'm huuuuuungryyyyy!" Sorry, but I was just hoping for her to die. Not to mention that his last couple of books have become very derivative. So many of the things said by Richard (the main character) seemed to be copied from AS, then painstakingly subjected to a thesaurus to change the key words. I'm sorry if this seems too mean to the author, and his earlier books in the series were definitely worth reading, but it's my opinion.

Warnings about looking for Objectivism: Don't look for Objectivist ethics in economics. Truly, many Objectivists embrace Mises and the Austrian Economists, but be careful- many many of these people are Utilitarians. I heard Hazlitt and Hayek mentioned earlier, so I thought this warning would be warranted. I do not say this to discredit their economics- I agree with the Austrian approach to economics, and like it very much. Their justifications for their economic views are great in terms of utility, but their moral justifications are often questionable. Likewise with Smith.

Also- things that seem to agree with tenets of Objectivism can be found in many places. Portions of Kant seem to agree with Objectivist Metaphysics, portions of Aristotle and Mill agree with Objectivist Ethics. None of these people were Objectivists, and some are against what Objectivism stands for. I love Aristotle, and think it is probably the closest to Rand's approach to philosophy.

Regarding Nietzsche: although an earlier poster said the similarities were superficial, I have to respectfully disagree. I think that perhaps looking at Nietzsche's slave/master dichotomy can lead one to dismiss him as accepting the premises of altruism while attempting to reject altruism. On further examination, this seems to be false- the character of Nietzsche's Master is further explored in his other works and is much more independent of the Slave. I agree that Nietzsche had many mistakes, but he is also worth reading and is, IMO, an Aristotelian at heart (I am now ducking to avoid flaming spears thrown by other Aristotelians).

Thats about it

[Thoyd Loki]

Sesklo

Portions of Kant seem to agree with Objectivist Metaphysics,

What portions would these be?

[Sesklo]

Please don't get defensive- I apologize for using the bad K word. I was pointing out that Kant seems to agree. I have met several philosophy students who misunderstand his universals to be a claim for objective reality (independent of your hopes, wishes, etc.) and was pointing this out. I think that there are many examples of this sort of thing in other philosophers as well, and was merely warning that although many philosophers use the language of reason, freedom, and objective reality, they don't mean the words in their proper sense. Philosophers who were within a mile of the Enlightenment had to use those words, or they weren't taken seriously.

[stephen_speicher]

Please don't get defensive-

Thoyd Loki was not being defensive. He simply asked a question. However, I note from reading parts of some of your recent posts that your attitude is somewhat antagonistic and disrespectful, so I would not be surprised if you were met with responses that defended against attacks, if they choose to respond at all.

[Sesklo]

Stephen, I have reread the posts I have made in the forum, and I'm not exactly certain what you refer to. I don't want to be perceived as making attacks. Although I do disagree with people in my posts, I did not perceive them as antagonistic. Let us resolve this in private chat instead of the forum- I don't want to take over a post with this. I will send you a private message.

[Thjatsi]

For fantasy, I would recommend Master of the Five Magics by Lyndon Hardy.

[stephen_speicher]

Stephen, I have reread the posts I have made in the forum, and I'm not exactly certain what you refer to. I don't want to be perceived as making attacks. Although I do disagree with people in my posts, I did not perceive them as antagonistic. Let us resolve this in private chat instead of the forum- I don't want to take over a post with this. I will send you a private message.

I am not interested in a "private chat." One example of what I found offensive was the content in your "fantasy" idea as an "appealing way to present ones thoughts!" You said,

A man greets me at the door, welcoming me to the summer Objectivist Conference. He says, "Hey, we don't care if you are ARI or TOC. As long as you respect reason and appeal only to reality as your final arbitrator, then you are welcome!

The implication being that those who run the "summer Objectivist Conference" do not welcome those who respect reason and appeal only to reality. The fact of the matter is, no one is asked to sign a declaration stating their "affiliation." If people are respectful and not insulting or demeaning, they are welcome. It is quite typical of ARI-bashers to present this as a false impression. Whether you intended to or not, your remarks are insulting and they just feed into the sort of myths that many enemies of Objectivism and ARI promulgate.

And once you were out of your "fantasy" means of presenting your ideas, you then stated directly: "So many Objectivist men I meet seem to honestly believe the rubbish about the role of a female being hero worship ..." Perhaps to you characterizing Ayn Rand's view of feminity as "rubbish" is how "I do disagree with people in my posts," but to me that is an antagonistic attitude and disrespectful to Ayn Rand. As I understand it, here on this forum you are free to disagree with the ideas of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, but you are asked to do so in a manner that is respectful to the philosophy and its creator.

Perhaps a moderator of the forum can clarify this, but personally I have no interest in reading postings from those who are insulting or disrespectful to Ayn Rand or ARI.

[Sesklo]

Stephen, That you for taking the time to point out what you have taken offense to. I will respect your preference for the forum rather than private chat and answer you in the forum.

It seems that it was not "parts of some of [my] recent posts" that upset you, but rather one post in particular. My sarcasm in that post regarding TOC and ARI was not implying that members of ARI do not respect reason. I was expressing my wish that, because the TOC and ARI Objectivists that I have met appear to respect reason, I would love it if instead of screaming at each other over forums, they would just discuss ideas using that as a common foundation.

I apologize for using the word "rubbish" in characterizing a part of Ayn Rand's view of femininity. I do respect Miss Rand, and Objectivism, but I also disagree with several things that she said, as well as a number of her personal preferences. I will take greater care in the future to use language that will not be offensive to others.

I will remove the offending post. (As soon as I figure out how exactly that is done). Please take the time to tell me if there were any other things that I posted that you view as offensive, and I will examine them in the light of your opinions. I would, as I am sure you would, like this to be a place where we can express ideas without offending one another.

[Sesklo]

Hmm. It appears, according to the help article I just read, that I can no longer edit my post, due to the time restriction. Well, I apologize, but I suppose it must stay. If anyone knows how to remove it, please let me know.

[stephen_speicher]

I was expressing my wish that, because the TOC and ARI Objectivists that I have met appear to respect reason, I would love it if instead of screaming at each other over forums, they would just discuss ideas using that as a common foundation.

If you take the time to read and understand Peikoff's essay Fact and Value, you will discover there is no "common foundation." http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...objectivism_f-v

I apologize for using the word "rubbish" in characterizing a part of Ayn Rand's view of femininity.... I would, as I am sure you would, like this to be a place where we can express ideas without offending one another.

Apology accepted. There are plenty of other places on the internet that relish offensive and disrespectful characterizations of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. This is not one one of them.

[Sesklo]

Hi Stephen- I have a question about Rand's ideas about femininity. After some thought about my disagreements with several things she has said about women, in her books and in her answers to readers, I began to wonder what part her ideas on this matter play in Objectivism. If we take Objectivism as addressing the basic areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics, then where do these sorts of Gender Studies ideas fit in there? Do you think this should be viewed as a personal preference or opinion, or as an actual part of Objectivism? It seems to me that it isn't really a part of philosophy, but should be addressed by empirical investigation of biologists or psychologists. What do you think?

[Betsy]

Hi Stephen- I have a question about Rand's ideas about femininity. After some thought about my disagreements with several things she has said about women, in her books and in her answers to readers, I began to wonder what part her ideas on this matter play in Objectivism. [...] It seems to me that it isn't really a part of philosophy, but should be addressed by empirical investigation of biologists or psychologists. What do you think?

Answering for myself, not my husband, I'd say these ARE issues of biology and psychology. Ayn Rand's view is that all philosophy has to say about it is: Sex is good. Everything else belongs to the specialized sciences.

[stephen_speicher]

Hi Stephen- I have a question about Rand's ideas about femininity. After some thought about my disagreements with several things she has said about women, in her books and in her answers to readers, I began to wonder what part her ideas on this matter play in Objectivism. If we take Objectivism as addressing the basic areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics, then where do these sorts of Gender Studies ideas fit in there? Do you think this should be viewed as a personal preference or opinion, or as an actual part of Objectivism? It seems to me that it isn't really a part of philosophy, but should be addressed by empirical investigation of biologists or psychologists. What do you think?

The views she expressed in regard to feminity were primarily psychological, generalizations from her own psychology, values, and sense of life. Properly speaking this is not part of the philosophy of Objectivism. As far as the science is concerned, it is primarily in the fields of psychology and neurobiology.

[Sesklo]

LOL, Betty, I didn't put together the last names until now. Thanks for the response. Hmmm- that is what I thought.

Also, I have read the essay which Stephen referred me to. I understand the relationship between justice and the rejection of tolerance. This essay is very helpful in understanding why ARI and TOC have so many negative things to say about each other. (Although one wonders why followers of an organization that is allegedly commited to tolerance of others would be so mean to followers of ARI, yet so nice to communists. But I suppose that question answers itself.)

This essay does raise more questions for me. I have many professors who, although not Marxist scolars, do hold some very bad ideas. I have a biology professor who is, on sundays, an enthusiastic Christian, and an Ancient Greek (language and archeology) professor who teaches multiculturalist theories in her other classes (sociology classes). I have gained a great deal from listening to both of these professors in their areas of expertise, even though they hold (and teach) some terrible ideas in other areas. There are many many people who are like this. I am not sure I understand whether Peikoff suggests that good people should refuse to associate with these types of people. If I determine on the basis of some of their ideas that these people are bad, then it follows that I should avoid associating with them in any way, but if I do this, there are many people who have so much knowledge and brilliance that I will miss out on. (Bill Gates is another example of this- amazing producer, but advocate of the "Death Tax.") What should be done in regards to associating with these people? Is it hypocritical to accept benefits from bad people?

[stephen_speicher]

Sesklo, it is all a matter of context. Generally speaking, if the context is a university education, then the primary is the professor's expertise in the subject and how well he can teach it. If you intend to socialize with the professor, then the primary has more to do with his character and the particular values he has. So, in answer to your question about "associating with these people," the sort of association that is proper is very much dependent on the context. But, on the extreme, if the professor were a Hitler then there would be no context that I would freely choose to associate with him, whether in a university setting or otherwise. Fortunately, most professors are not quite that bad.

[Sesklo]

Hahah. Ok- I won't associate with Hitler (even though I think that he is teaching my ethnic lit class).

Unrelatedly- I just realized that I called Betsy "Betty." Erm... sorry about that.

[Sparrow]

Probably the best Objectivist novelist other than Rand was Kay Nolte Smith.  A couple of her books are pretty derivative of Rand stylistically, but she grew out of that fairly quickly.  Her best book is "A Tale of The Wind."  They're out of print, but used copies are not that hard to find online.

I would like to second this recommendation. My tribute to Kay Nolte Smith is posted on The Atlasphere at:

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/03110...ynoltesmith.php

Smith's fourth novel, "Elegy for a Soprano" is problematic, a roman a clef about Rand to a certain degree, but her other novels are fabulous.

[MRDA]

If you're willing to dig into secondary literature, you might consider Douglas Rasmussen & Douglas Den Uyl's Liberty and Nature.  It's been described as post-Randian Aristotelianism.

Max Stirner (author of The Ego And Its Own) was an advocate of what I guess you could call "predatory egoism".  It doesn't bear much resemblance to what Rand was talking about, but then again neither does Nietzsche once you get past the superficial.

Overall, though, it's pretty thin pickings.  Egoism has not been a popular viewpoint in the history of ethics.

Strner isn't so much about predation as he is about acting in one's own interest - his "might is right" philosophy has similarities to Branden's "no one is coming to the rescue" - basically he's saying don't hide behind empty platitudes but instead fight for your rights, property etc, and the preservation of such! If one passively espouses this right or that without upholding it in practice, they've given a certain legitimacy to those with suspect ideas. As is often said, "the surest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

The area where he does considerably differ from Rand, apart from his (theoretically) cavalier attitude toward initiation of force, is the rejection of normatives such as "man qua man" which he sees every bit as counterproductive as collectivist ideas of God, State, family, race, etc...