All Activity

Individualism does not equate to being able to rewrite reality. Ayn Rand did not hand out a set of "commandments," and even wrote that such a thing was offensive. She did identify principles of morality. She claimed that they were derivable from objective fact. She showed how to derive them. This is similar to the way Newton identified principles of physics. Newton is not opposed to individualism merely because he came up with Newton's Laws and then claimed they were universal and not subject to individual choice. Newton, like Rand, showed how he came up with his principles. The description of how is more important than the principles themselves, but his work would have been incomplete if he had merely described the "how" and left the principles themselves to implication. So it is with Rand. The identification of Newton's Laws was a major breakthrough in Enlightenment thought because it showed, on a scale never before seen at that time, the power of the mind to grasp reality. Ayn Rand's morality does the same thing (although historically later). Her principles are not meant for the kind of "blind obedience" that religionists encourage from people. If some people take her principles that way, it's because those people have probably grown up with religion and they don't know any other way to handle such principles. People new to Objectivism sometimes enthusiastically graft it onto what they already "know" without realizing that they're still acting on unidentified anti-Objectivist principles. (Then others observe their behavior and think it's Objectivist behavior when it isn't.) Newton was obviously not meant for blind obedience, either, and it was not the final word on physics. Future discoveries made Einstein possible (and necessary). The same thing is probably also true with Rand. There are probably moral principles yet to be discovered, that apply in situations Rand didn't consider, but they would still have to be validated by reference to reality and the requirements of human life. (Besides, applying the principles correctly, to your own circumstances, can require considerable amounts of "thinking for yourself.")

Parmenides dealt with the question of Being and Existence. Your viewpoint is very similar to his, although Parmenides emphasized Being (permanence) over Existence (change, Heraclitean flux).

"Yes" demonstrates to me that you are a philosopher, even if an amateur, and that you can think for yourself. But then again, you're not exactly an Objectivist, as you stated.

I have my readers. Yes.

If I posted any news, it was obviously my (correct) idea that Rand told people what to think, rather than teaching them how to think for themselves (as if they were individuals and not drones). I recently found that another non-Objectivist made the same observation, and I cited the blog address somewhere around here. If it's hard for you to distinguish new from old in my writing, from now on I promise that I will parenthesize everything I write on this topic with either (new) or (old).

Original work on Objectivism from non-Objectivists never goes over well.

I do see Rand's two uses of the term man. That is not news. She said that over the body of her work, she would write "To the Glory of Man." That was her use of the term as model or ideal human. It is plain when she is using man to mean male to which she would be a man-worshipper with the right one. That is not Man, the general ideal for humans. Rand's views on sexual roles are also not news.

I don't know if I have a Beck translation. I stated that I don't want to dig around for the Groundwork. Then I stated that you require people to go look up citations, but that I provide quotes on demand if I didn't provide one originally. Have I insulted you with statements such as "Slow down and actually comprehend what I wrote to you in the little post you quoted. Can you do that? Do you want to?" One nice thing about being me is that, as a nobody (and I prefer it that way), the fact of becoming a somebody has never had a chance to go to my head.

Boydstun stated that he sees people on this forum thinking for themselves all the time. I need to provide a better answer than my previous one. The CONTEXT of my OP was the ability to think morally without relying on a list of values and virtues provided by Ayn Rand. I ended the OP by stating that Kant provided a formula for people to make up their own set of morals, as long as they were rationally validated by the CI. He did not provide them with a set of rules or duties to follow. The contrast between Rand's and Kant's theories was to show the difference between an individualistic moral theory from the Enlightenment that teaches people to think for themselves, and an allegedly individualistic moral theory that only tells people what to think with a set of rules to follow. I hope that clarifies things. This is original work, so misunderstandings will happen.

Ogg, The little book you possess is in English. Many people have that in the Beck translation, and I have given you the page numbers (13–15) which disprove your recall that Kant said nothing about life in his ethics. He said something right there on those pages, and it's something important. Suppose for a few minutes that you have some things to learn from information people are supplying here, these very people trying to converse with you. Slow down and actually comprehend what I wrote to you in the little post you quoted. Can you do that? Do you want to?

Latin or German? This is hopeless. I can't research that. I will provide quotes for people who ask for them if I didn't provide one myself, rather than sending them to look up a book that is written in Latin or German. You're welcome for the help I gave you with one of your articles.

Boydstun doesn't want to see anything about Rand being a man-worshipper, which she was. Males, not humans in general. And you think I misunderstand her views, and that I accuse others of misunderstanding her views. I have read everything she wrote several times, except for most of those boring journal entries of hers. They are, however, quite revealing indeed, for what I read. And quite damning in one way. Shall I go on?

Ogg, The citation is to the Academy Edition (Akademie Ausgabe) of Kant's works (which are in Latin or German). So 4 refers to the volume in that collection and the other numbers to the right pages therein. A volume can contain multiple shorter works, which is why the page numbers are high even though this is a short work. All modern translators of Kant into English show the Academy volume and its pages in the margins as the text unfolds. That way everyone can locate the same text in their discussions even if the participants are using different translations. But if by chance your translation is the one by Lewis White Beck (1959), it does not have those Academy numbers running along in the margins. He does have them in square brackets at the top of each of his own pages. So in Beck, read his pages 13–15.

Hold it right there... Ayn Rand is not responsible for misunderstandings or misrepresentations of her views, even popular misunderstandings. Unfortunately it is fairly common for some people to misunderstand her views, and then for some others to hold that those misunderstandings are actually her views, when they are not. It is better not to accuse people of holding certain ideas unless you know what you are talking about.

Thought I knew where I was going with that line, but I've lost the thread , lol. I went 'off' like half a full rooster.

Those are your opinions. And I am primarily concerned with Objectivists.

I have a copy of the Groundwork in a box somewhere around here. But rather than dig it out, I tried searching for it with Google Books. Then I got this when I searched for 4:397-99:

Yes, that usage of "man" in that context just means "human". That had been commonplace usage in somewhat earlier times from ours, and you are wrong about Rand meaning only males by it. It includes both males and females. If you argue with someone while thinking they mean males only when they really mean humans, you are arguing with a phantom, a mere nothing. And she did not restrict "man" to men of the mind. You can tell when she is using "man" as a model or ideal (as in "Man is man") and when she is speaking of men descriptively only. Her definition of man in full description was that man is a rational animal or a suicidal animal (by failings in rationality). I'm starting to lose confidence that you are a source of useful information.

The Groundwork is a relatively short work. Are you implying it contains at least 399 pages? This is why I quote works when I have to, rather than guiding people to the text itself with pagination. What the heck is 4:397-99? The four is easy this time, but '397-99' doesn't make sense to me. In your other essays, where you write 8:, I have no clue what that means. With regard to similarities between Kant's and Rand's works, there are obviously two camps: those who want to find similarities, and those who don't.

Ogg, In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant discusses the nature of life and the inadequacy for making life the end for ethical values at 4:397–99. As Fred Seddon and George Walsh (phi professors) earlier did, you are making too much similarity between Kant and Rand by being too coarse-grained about their ideas and treating terminology they shared as though their meanings for the terms were always the same, which is false. Kant's and Rand's are philosophies thoroughly at odds with each other, both in theoretical philosophy and in ethical theory, even if Rand did not always get right just what all were her difference from the real Kant (what he really wrote) in the area of theoretical philosophy.

When you say "it" are you referring to materialism? If so, yes, materialism today about living things would be the discreteness of cells. But that is not a conjecture or implication of any modern philosophical position; it is just the result of nineteeth century biology that all living matter is made of cells. It is a further speculation, such as I would make, that all consciousness and experience and memories are results in living matter engaged with the world and the organism's own internal regulations. That would be a modern materialism of consciousness and pals. That the matter is cellular is only from science. In the portion of what I said that you quoted, I was thinking only of general ontology and Rand's point about it in that first paragraph at the top of page 39 in ITOE, with which I mainly agree. I don't see that as implying an ontologic discreteness, rather, an absence of any absolute disconnection of any existent from any other existents at all (except the existent that is the entirety of existence, of course). And I don't see that position in general ontology as implying any sort of materialism.

Yours would be a strict materialism then , no ? It presupposes an ontologic discrete-ness, yes ?

Kant the anthropologist did deal with the concept of life. But not Kant the ethicist, that I can recall. And the context of my comment was his ethics, which I read, and don't remember any analysis of human life. Very similar to Rand's analysis.

Yes, you said as much already. And it's a good idea. I read where you stated that, on OL, you can reach more people by writing scholarly essays. But even if I reached a million people, I wouldn't unless I was paid well to do it. In fact, I would probably start with this massive (to me) undertaking by using the paginations you already have out there.