epistemologue

How do you read the first chapter? It doesn't let me.

Whose rights?

What's wrong with outlawing abortion?

It looks like an independent Republican is entering the race: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/ A few issues that concern me so far: "Vulnerable populations, including patients with preexisting conditions, should be protected." - how should they be "protected"? "While America is a compassionate nation, more government programs aren’t the single answer to addressing the least fortunate. Those who can work should have to opportunity to work, and those who need the training and education to become productive should receive it." - recieve it, from whom? "Once our borders are secure, we can begin a national debate on developing a system where law-abiding people can seek a path to legal residence and in some cases citizenship." - amnesty for illegals? Everything else looks pretty good. What do you guys think?

That's a good question. I think I agree with Eiuol here to this extent - if they vote for it, that does seem like a sanction, doesn't it? It seems like if you're voting on principle, you could not vote for anyone who supports involuntary taxation, or any other kind of initiation of force against the citizens. I mean the whole essence of political philosophy is the absolutism of individual rights / the non-aggression principle. There might be candidates who have a lot of non-rights-violating wacky ideas one way or the other that make them better or worse, but can you really sanction someone who breaks the fundamental political principle of individual rights? I think what's most clear is that if you did not vote for them, but rather opposed them on the grounds that they support theft, and then they pass a bill to steal from you, then you are a victim of an injustice that they are committing. But you supported them for president. You sanctioned them. You were a part of the causal chain which led to them being president, and besides, a vote is an endorsement. You did have a choice. If everyone refused to vote, or instead voted for a write-in candidate who didn't support rights-violations, then they wouldn't have been elected. But instead you supported them, you were a part of causing them to be elected, you sanctioned them to hold the office. And while generally you're not morally responsible for other people's actions, if they've outlined their platform, and you supported them, and they carried out their platform, then there's no way to see this as not being consented to. They told you what they wanted to do, and you didn't say "no", you said "yes". That's consent. And if you consent to the violation of other people's rights - you're guilty of that injustice. Certainly it is, if you don't pay your taxes, they will come after you, take your property, etc. And yes I think most Americans would say their taxes are too high, and are being spent on things they shouldn't be, etc... it's to a large degree non-consensual. That being said, I do support the idea of working within a flawed system. You don't have to support or sanction the things in a system that are wrong in order to work within the system. You can support the things that are right and oppose the things that are wrong. You don't have to "go Galt" to avoid sanctioning evil.

Why hasn't there already been a mass-marketing of Objectivism by Objectivists? There's a lack of funds, passion, people behind it - ultimately there's a lack of value, which can only be attributed to a lack of conviction. This is how people work: their passion is driven by their value judgments and their thinking - ultimately by the consistency of their philosophical premises. To the extent premises are mixed there's going to be a lack of conviction, valuation, passion, and especially an inability to convince others. What's worse, people who feel convinced but are unable to rationally defend themselves end up getting defensive, coming across as either pretentious, mean, or what have you. Even if they don't get defensive, when their defense of their ideas is weak, that inherently belittles the movement as well. This weakness and defensiveness, and ultimately the inherent inconsistency in the ideas, is what gives life to superficial misconceptions, negative connotations, mockery, and the like. For example, look at the ARI's relationship with David Kelley. Or the minarchism vs. anarchism debate. Or their attitude toward conservatives and Christians. One of the deepest issues originates in Objectivist metaethics. The Objectivist justification of morality tends towards a consequentialist pursuit of happiness, given the outraged rejection of deontology, and the embrace of "flourishing" and "optional values" as exemplified by Tara Smith's Viable Values. But Objectivists are characteristically mixed, denying they are consequentialist, yet holding consequentialist premises inconsistently. Given these mixed messages, it's no wonder people are hearing inconsistency, and are trying to figure out where Objectivists "really" come down - and they identify correctly it's with consequentialists. Given the unprincipled nature of that ethical system, and the embrace of egoism, the only logical conclusion is to assume Objectivists are the brutish egotists they deny they really are. And if you look at responses to lifeboat situations, you often find that conclusion is actually true. They are often willing to agree that it's morally necessary to murder, steal, lie, and so on, if the situation requires it for their survival. People can see pretty intuitively the inconsistency, and which side Objectivists will fall on if they are pushed.

I couldn't disagree more. The only reason those misconceptions have any life is that nobody is actually sold on the consistency of the substantive philosophy itself.

Rand is consistent on the point that your ultimate purpose is your own happiness. I think Laughlin is accurately representing her position.

I don't even think this is accurate. This is what Obama thinks his biggest problem is: he just hasn't been able to communicate his message to these Republicans clearly. It's exactly the opposite, Republicans have been clear on what his message is for a long time, and they simply disagree with it. Same goes with Objectivism. I think what we really need is to answer people's reservations and disagreements convincingly, and then the ideas will sell themselves. People's feelings and passions follow from their prior thinking and judgments. On this principle, ask yourself, why did Rand's fiction sell so much better than her non-fiction - i.e. what was it in her thinking, in her philosophy, that was different in one medium vs. the other? I think we ought to be a lot more introspective on what it is we are even trying to sell in the first place. For example, why are there as many different positions on Objectivist metaethics as there are people writing on the subject? If the logic of Objectivist metaphysics/epistemology/ethics/politics has inconsistencies, and there are other philosophies that give more consistent answers, Objectivism is going to lose followers to those systems.

In the article (http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.ro/2008/05/what-is-central-purpose-in-life.html), he specifically says that your CPL is only one aspect of the pursuit of your "ultimate" purpose (which is happiness): a CPL is an abstraction, one that subsumes and integrates the many particular productive tasks in which a man engages to support his ultimate purpose in life, happiness. A simple metaphor for the relationship between a man's ultimate purpose and his CPL is a great tent, which is a life of happiness. Its main (but not only) tent-pole is his CPL. Other high purposes holding up the "tent" might be social relationships and a favorite leisure activity. Howard Roark loves designing and constructing buildings. He loves Dominique Francon and befriends Mike the construction worker. When time permits, he enjoys swimming.

agreed. Galt is somewhat of a counter-example, though. He spent the novel going around convincing people to go on strike with him, and presented the entire radio address, diagnosing the philosophical problems in the culture and attempting to persuade people to his point of view. However, I think what Galt, Dagny, Rearden, and Francisco all did to Eddie Willers was pretty horrible. He was a good guy who added a lot of value to each of their lives; they used him, and then they all abandoned him when they fled to the gulch. It's a pretty unbelievable oversight for what are supposed to be admirable heroes...

Eiuol, I don't see a middle ground between persuasion and force. Ultimately you're trying to do one or the other. If you're trying to use force, but to limit it to be within the realm of individual rights (e.g. going around trying to disrupt things), that's at best going to be an ineffective strategy, just because people have rights to their property (including throwing you off of it) - and at worst you're going to start justifying violating people's rights just because they are being irrational. If instead you're trying to expand on persuasion by being provocative and trying to seek attention (e.g. flipping over tables and denouncing people), then that could make more sense, if you actually had a compelling case to make and your actions were appropriate (though extreme) pursuant to making that case. The problem is that a lot of these attention-seeking types don't have a compelling case, or are taking extreme actions that really aren't appropriate (or are actually rights-violating), and they just end up coming across as crackpots/jackasses/criminals (see your RATM example).

a? "A CPL is a personal, possibly unique, statement of productive purpose, a purpose that need not be attractive to anyone else."

Well that's barely the beginning of it. Someone should actually write up an explanation on how insane it would be to vote for Hillary as an Objectivist. I'll probably do it if nobody else does.

Evil isn't quite as real as tbat

More from Bissell's paper on "dual-aspect" metaphysics: Dual-aspect as against eliminativist reductionism: Lastly his take on free will:

Where do people on this forum fall when it comes to Objectivist philosophy of mind / the metaphysics of consciousness? There seem to be quite a variety of views through the spectrum from complete reductionistic materialism on the one end to complete mind-body dualism on the other end. The only survey of the views of Objectivist scholars that I know is Diana Hsieh's paper here: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/docs/mio.pdf She wrote another paper on the subject here: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/docs/atom.pdf Personally I've previously described myself as having the position of reductionistic materialism, but I've also always said it was non-eliminativist, basically as Peikoff describes in the video below... but this may be inconsistent: It would also describe my position as some kind of form-matter parallelism... maybe like Aristotle's hylomorphic compounds or Spinoza's dual-aspect monism, though I'm not sure as I've only studied their philosophies a little bit so far. Here is Roger Bissell's position from Hsieh's paper: ... and his paper here: http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11aaa.html I think the right answer should maintain the integrity of identity while also keeping a necessary/parallel relation to matter. It should avoid any mind-body dichotomy involved in outright dualism (Binswanger), or the idea that mind and matter are separate and causally affect one another (Kelley and others), or that either the form/mind/identity aspect or material aspect are metaphysically unreal or unnecessary to explain consciousness (eliminativist reductionism, ephiphenomenalism, etc). I'm curious where others come down on these issues, as it seems Ayn Rand left the issue mostly unaddressed.

Well, as long as we as non-artists are posting bad fiction to make a philosophical point, I might as well post mine. For those unaware, see this thread for the source of the debate: Here's the story I sent Eiuol before he posted his, titled "Abraham": ---------- He was lost in the desert. How it happened was irrelevant at this point, except that it wasn't his fault. All that mattered now was the sand, the wind, the dry rocks, and the empty horizon in every direction. And the thirst. Lips chapped and cracking, throat parched, every step heavy and dizzying, the last of the water he carried was long gone. There was no natural oasis. And no human necessity would have been left behind by others – none would be spared in this inhospitable land. He marched forward in the midst of nothing. Visions of his life swam in his mind: a beautiful girl in a field of flowers, with a carefree smile – his wife and his greatest love, whom he had married eagerly after a short, passionate engagement. He saw his home, a house he had designed and built by hand – a place that he loved, a place that was truly his own. And inside was his brilliant young son, whose future was full of promise, and who meant the world to him. He arrived at a tent on the verge of death. He didn't care who owned it. In such a desperate emergency his only thought was to rush inside and seize upon anything to drink. If he ever found who it belonged to, he would pay any restitution the owner of the tent demanded; he would owe him his life. He reached the tent and threw back the flap. Inside was a man. “Water. Please. I will do anything you ask.” he begged the startled man. He saw that the man's face was old and hard, and that he was thin, small, and his skin was tight, with the look of someone who was accustomed to little water. Someone who knew all too well the insidious subtleties necessary for the long-term survival of a human in the desert. “How did you get here?”, the man asked him, astonished. “I can tell you have been walking in the desert for some time without water, and that you are about to die.” “There was an accident. Events out of my control landed me in this place. Please share your water with me, I see you have two bottles. Let me have just one.” The winds shook the tent threateningly and the ubiquitous sand billowed in through the open flap. “Believe me, I wish I could help you. I don't want to see you die. But I am as helpless as you are. I've seen many die in this unforgiving place due to unfortunate events that were beyond their control. Such circumstances are not unusual out here in the desert.” The man looked at him respectfully, but firmly, “To survive here one must expect the unfortunate, one must expect failure, one must expect disaster – because it's surely coming.” “You are going to deny me this water and let me die – because you might need it in a possible emergency of your own?” he asked with incredulous fatigue. “I will not give you the water. And that is absolutely final. There is nothing whatsoever you can say to change my mind.” The two men stood looking at each other. In his last moments he felt a desperate strength. His body screamed with thirst. His heart raged to get the water - for his love, for his home, and for all of the value and promise of the world, for his very life. “Are you thinking you could force it from me? You probably could. I am old and frail, and you are young and strong and desperate. But I will fight you for it. “So come on, attack me if you want, or leave here empty handed. I think in your desperate situation – which I could barely imagine if it weren't happening here now – there is no right answer for everyone. There's no rule for this situation. I think whatever a man chooses in this case is right – for him, personally. If I would do one thing, you may do the opposite. Nobody can truly say what's right or wrong in such an emergency. “What are you waiting for? What are you, principled? Do you want to live – but only live a life of principle? Rights, justice, morality – they are all impossible when everything you are, when everything you value, when your life itself is at stake. How could you choose to cause your death? How is that just? How is that moral? How is that right? In a civilized society, where water is abundant, where you earn a living and pay your way justly for what you need to survive – where if someone refuses to trade with you, then you can just as well take your business elsewhere - there perhaps you can justify the idea that men's interests do not conflict, that it makes sense to say there are such things as rights, as justice, as standing on moral principle – there, in a free society, where your long-term life and flourishing are possible. But not here! Not in the desert. Not in this desperate emergency. Your life and flourishing are not possible here. There is no long-term. No principle can apply here except the will to live. “So fight me now. Do you have any will to live? I'm not looking forward to this, but the logic is unavoidable. If you value your life you must fight. The context has abrogated any other moral consideration except your survival. Fight me, kill me, steal from me – if you have the might to do it. It will save your life. You are in the right. You are justified.” The winds had calmed, and an unexpected thunder quietly rumbled in the distance. It seemed out of place in the desert. “I think you have spent too much time in the desert, my friend. The nature of reality doesn't change depending on the situation. Just because we are in the desert and this is an emergency doesn't mean reality itself is any different, only that the situation is abnormal. Moral principles that are ultimately grounded in the nature of reality do not change. They are not abrogated by the situation – they are applied to the situation. “You asked if I have any will to live. My will to live is a force of nature. Life is a fundamental characteristic of man's nature, and thus of my identity. It's not something I chose, it's something I was born with, as a given. To contradict my will to live is to contradict myself. That means as a basic rule – as a fundamental normative moral principle – I support my will to live with all my heart, always, and I never go against it. And I cannot, if I am consistent, will my life to end – but rather I can only will it to go and on, that is, infinitely. So I am always looking to the long-term, to the infinitely long, to the eternal. “How can one live infinitely long-term? Every living thing has a body, and those bodies are susceptible to breaking down and dying, as mine is doing right now before your eyes. This process can only be prevented, repaired, and reversed through the scientific discoveries and technological innovations made by the minds of men. The invention of immortality and resurrection is the only long-term solution to staying alive. “So, what should I do now in order to live long-term? Should I act on principle or not? Should I respect the rights of others and the integrity of their property, or should I violate them? Should I support their productive work or sabotage it? Should I kill you and steal your water, or not? You are a man, and my life, in the long-term, depends on the productive work of men, and by extension, on their rights to their life and to their property. Acting on principle is the best possible way to support and pursue my life in the long-term – even if it kills me in the short term.” He turned around, opened the flap of the tent, walked back out into the sands of the desert, and collapsed. …

I'm in!

When and why? You seem to be saying that in some situations you're "unable to choose to live" and thus you are outside of the "context of morality". But as SL said earlier: So the question isn't "is there any choice to live?", but rather, "which of my possible choices best supports my life?" I've given an argument about what choice best supports your life and why. SL has argued that the opposite choice in this situation is the one that best supports your life. We disagree on the conclusion, but at least agree that both choices have some bearing on your life, that you're situation is within the "context of morality", and that there actually is a right answer about what you're supposed to do in this situation. If you disagree with my conclusion, then why don't you think SL's choice is in support of your life? As far as my argument goes, it doesn't depend on cryonics or anything specific like that. The argument is that the human mind will continue to gain understanding of nature and the ability to control it, as has been happening throughout history up to this point, and we have every reason to believe will continue, and given benevolent premises about the nature of reality and of man, we should expect to achieve existentially necessary values like immortality and resurrection. And no, my argument was not "you'll get revived if you're good", it was that following the NAP is the most effective way to contribute to the productivity of man, which is the best way to support inventing these technologies, which are in fact your only hope for survival over the long term. I'm not sure what you mean.

Drop in the chatroom sometime! http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/chat/&_fromLogin=1

Hey if anyone is interested in an Objectivism meetup in Buffalo, please send me a message

Several of you have been asking me for specifics - see my post on assertiveness for example.

Nice, I hadn't seen this before. This interview aside, I agree completely that Objectivists do seem to have a problem with assertiveness. It almost seems like people have taken philosophical/political concepts of non-aggression and non-interference - i.e. avoiding the use of non-initiatory, rights-violating, unjustified violence against innocent people, by individuals and especially governments - and applied these more broadly, taking as general principles of behavior in their lives the idea that they ought not have any kind of assertiveness or aggressiveness in their personality at all. These are critical personality traits for working with reality and with other people - especially for men. Seizing opportunity and pushing on people for answers to one's questions, for things you expect from them, to morally or aesthetically criticize (or endorse) their behavior or their work, or in general holding people to standards of reason and value. Just because someone has a legal right to be free from violent interference by you to do something immoral, wrong, sub-optimal, irrational - doesn't mean there is any legal or moral right whatsoever for them to be free from your assertiveness, insistence, advice, criticism, argument. In fact the moral onus is exactly the reverse - if you see something unreasonable or sub-optimal, in the world or in others around you, you owe it to yourself to *say something*, to push on it, to change it - and to insist as vigorously as you reasonably (and legally) can on what only makes sense, what would only make something better. The non-aggression principle is only the furthest edge at which you must *stop* - NOT a general prescription to avoid any kind of interference in general. Can you imagine a chief of operations in a company, say a railroad, whose principle of behavior was to allow anyone he employs to do things however they like, according to whatever standards they happen to hold, moral or immoral, rational or irrational - with *no* interference, assertiveness, or otherwise non-rights violating aggressiveness from him whatsoever - with his justification being that it's their legal right to be free from aggression? The company would dissolve into complete dysfunction and failure in no time at all. Or what about a teacher or a coach who did nothing to guide, correct, or push their students or players to do better, to correct their problems, or to follow a proper method? It should be no surprise when they fail tests and lose games. Now imagine this on a societal scale, where there are no philosophical or moral leaders with any assertiveness. People are left directionless and swayed by whim when no one of any philosophical expertise or conviction is there to teach them, to guide them, to push them on what's morally right, what's rational, what's ideal - to push them to do better, to be better, to produce better work - because that's what makes sense, that's what's rational, that's what will bring themselves and those around them the most value, and advance their lives, happiness, and flourishing the most. Every Objectivist needs to read this essay by Ayn Rand from her book The Virtue of Selfishness: HOW DOES ONE LEAD A RATIONAL LIFE IN AN IRRATIONAL SOCIETY? https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1962/01/01/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/page1 And by the way - this applies *especially* to men. The world needs a lot more assertive, aggressive, pushy, masculine Objectivist men. Some of you were asking me in the gender thread for me to be specific about what are the normative moral principles of masculinity. Well here's a perfect example. The liberal, androgynous postmodernism of our time is an epidemic which is now doing great harm, especially among young people. It needs to be aggressively challenged by driven, principled, Objectivist leaders.

Sorry, my point was that the lyrics themselves (i.e. what words they are saying) aren't particularly relevant.