rohintest
-
Posts
10 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rohintest
-
-
I am working to convert content of the blog into a Video.
Here is the link to a trailer –
-
Cultural Survey
Ayn Rand’s insights into mind-body dichotomy, DIM Hypothesis by Dr. Peikoff, and my understanding of the differences between Aristotelian and Platonic Philosophy are applied here. The purpose is to survey ethical ideas in current culture, infer right ethical principles, and also understand the social reality of our time.
—
Whether it’s in supermarket, or career selection, or falling in love — every decision and corresponding actions have consequences. Actions that lead to a good life are right. A good life is a life that is healthy — physically, mentally, and emotionally.
However, it’s not automatically clear which decisions are right or wrong. Some thinking and judgment are required to check correctness. This thinking and judgment are guided by the subject of Ethics. Further, intensity of thinking and impact of consequences range from very small to extreme. For example, career selection and love-related decisions are impactful, and decisions in the supermarket have relatively less impact.
Purpose of Ethics is three-fold. First is to help an individual identify values. Second is to enable an individual to prioritize identified values. And third is to guide the individual, as he acts to achieve or maintain the identified values.
The three criteria of ethics, identification, prioritization, and action on values will be used here to understand and judge different Ethical Systems.
So here are various Ethical Systems:
Altruism: Historically and widely popular, it calls a decision or action right if it involves intention to sacrifice values. This sacrifice may involve values owned by self, or values owned by others. Examples can be charitable actions of Bill Gates for sacrificing values of self. Or actions of socialist leaders in Venezuela and elsewhere, for sacrificing values owned by fellow men in society.
So it’s clear that in Altruism, the main criteria for right and wrong is action aspect of Ethics. That is, a person is judged good by this Ethics if he or she sacrifices values. Identification and Prioritization of values is subservient to the decision to sacrifice. For example, Mother Teresa mostly just made death easy for the sick and homeless. But because she sacrificed her own life for others, she was given high moral credit, driven by the Ethics of Altruism.
Further, in Altruism, the focus is on other people rather than self.
Predatory Egoism: Like Altruism, Predatory Egoism also has sacrifice as the standard of right and wrong. Further however, it classifies an action or decision as right if the beneficiary of the sacrifice is the person making the decision. Examples can be Donald Trump maligning Amazon and Jeff Bezos, trying to sacrifice their reputation and therefore market, to appeal to his political followers; or many industrialists like Gang of Four in American Railways around 19th Century, pushing government regulations that harm competitors and therefore benefit themselves through coercive (forceful) monopolies.
Here, too, focus is on other people rather than self.
Hedonism: The most visible image of a Hedonist is a drug addict or a raging alcoholic. However, since hedonism refers to those who make decisions solely based on what they feel is right, often based on their mood, so hedonism should also include those who make career and love decisions primarily from their feelings, even if they are not using drugs or alcohol.
Ethics of Eudaimonia:Eudaimonia is a Greek origin word which means human flourishing and prosperity. According to this system of Ethics, human happiness realized due to flourishing is the standard of right and wrong. (As against hedonistic happiness). However, when we go into specific principles of Eudaimonia, there is resistance to facts as the basis of Ethics. That is, whenever there is a conflict between the judgment / intuition / feelings about what is valuable, and facts that might have been basis of those values, then practitioners of Eudaimonia prefer intuition over facts. And therefore sometimes, Eudaimonia implicitly promotes altruistic thinking like charity as very important or helping colleagues over personal career etc.
Rational Egoism:Like Eudaimonia, Rational Egoism also has life and well-being of the valuer as a standard. Unlike Eudaimonia however, here relevant facts are given primacy when in conflict with intuitive guidelines. Example of relevant facts is production as a fundamental element in human survival and flourishing, creating values like e-Commerce and factories from ideas, that is.
Further, there is hierarchy or definite order in which the Ethical code is identified and then applied. Virtues or guides for obtaining values for flourishing are derived from flourishing life as standard, and after that organization of facts relevant for flourishing life. For example in this Ethics, we have virtues or guidelines that involve evaluation of individuals based on how they contribute to one’s productive purpose, or seeking of knowledge for purpose etc.
Production rather than sacrifice as the focus of pursuit is the foundation for purposeful action in Rational Egoism. This is the fundamental difference between Rational Egoism and Predatory Egoism.
Since the nature of valuer, wants of the valuer, and socio-ecological environment of the valuer is used for identifying the Central Motivation of his or her life, therefore Egoism or the view of self is a key element in this ethics. Further, since purpose is derived from facts, and executed based on Ethical Principles derived from facts, so Rationality is also the key element here.
Actions of Steve Jobs, whether being able to visualize future benefits from technology, or praising good Computer Engineers, are examples of Rational Egoism. Overall, this is the only Ethical System, whichconsistently considers identification of values as primary. Eudaimonia being the system which inconsistently considers identification and prioritization of values as primary.
Pragmatism: Discarding principles of any kind is the essence of Pragmatism. Whether principles are value-generating or value-destroying, Pragmatism holds that as long as an individual reaches out to principles for creating or protecting values, he is acting on a wrong premise. An example is a statement such as an idea may be good in theory, but is bad in practice. So rather than question specifics of theories or principles, the school of ethics rejects the need for principled and abstract thinking itself. So here too, like Altruism, identification and prioritization of values is secondary, compared to actions in pursuit of values.
Categorical Imperative: Converse of Pragmatism is this school, where the need for Principle to be practically validated is completely discarded. So if any principle is raised to the Ethical level, then the school says it is wrong to attempt to consider its practical implications. For example, the school says charity or socialism as good should not be validated with facts of reality. Or even ideas like will of majority is always true, should not be validated.
Further, the Ethical Principles that Rational Egoism or Eudaimonia correctly derive as right, are often misrepresented by the school of Categorical Imperative while executing. For example, earning more money is a right thing, as long as it improves flourishing life and does not involve coercion, overall, supporting the Central Purpose of the individual’s life. However, since Categorical Imperative disconnects this principle from practical aspects like flourishing, so this can lead to an unhealthy or irrational obsession with wealth. Therefore through the Ethics of Categorical Imperative, wealth becomes a distraction rather than the means to promote rational purpose and happiness.
Therefore Categorical Imperative also falls in the same category as Altruism and Pragmatism, only more extreme. It completely discards identification and prioritization in favor of action. Divorcing What from How, that is.
Nihilism: In Predatory Egoism, sacrifice of other people and their efforts for benefit of self rather than mutual benefit is considered. Nihilism goes one step further. Here the action or the decision is considered right, if it involves sacrifice, or more precisely destruction of values. (Destruction being the motive, with sacrifice as the straw man or the rationalization.) Unlike Predatory Egoism, here there is no intention to gain from sacrifice or destruction. Destruction is an end in itself. Example can be socialized medicine destroying medical institutions, without providing any tangible gain to anybody.
Skeptical School of Ethics: This school focuses mostly on maintaining already achieved values, and not on creating new values. The examples of this school are nutritionists, environmentalists, Libertarians etc. (There is an element of nihilism also in this school.) The best of environmentalists focus on the negative impact human activity has on the environment, which in turn impacts humans back. The solution they offer is abstinence from progress itself. The worst of the environmentalists consider environment as an end in itself. And like Altruists, such environmentalists also want individuals to sacrifice for the environment, irrespective of whether the sacrifice provides overall benefit to the individual or not. Similarly, Libertarians focus on negative aspects of government only, some of them advocating anarchy rather than specific reforms.
Since Production or Creation of values is low on the agenda of skeptics, they end up stalling the flourishing. (Values for flourishing being not just products but also methods, processes, guidelines like law and Constitution etc.). Flourishing refers to activities that make humans more capable of surviving. And therefore skeptics turn into nihilists by implication.
Conclusion: Survey of various Ethical schools brings out a few types in decision-making: a type that is focused on sacrifice and destruction of Values; a type like Libertarians and Environmentalists, who look only at the negative aspects of Production; a type that considers flourishing life as the standard of values, but is reluctant to question sacrificial or Altruistic actions; a type that discards principled thinking and puts emotions over fact-based principles; a type that disconnects principles from facts and implications, making them out of context absolute. And finally a Rational Egoist, deriving decisions from facts about self and own environment, and using fact-based rational principles to execute these decisions.
Of course, many subscribe to mixtures of these schools. For example, Altruism leading to a sense of entitlement and therefore Predatory Egoism. Or Pragmatism leading to Hedonism.
At an even wider level, there are schools of Ethics that give primacy to actions on values. Here content of values involving identification and prioritization is mostly an afterthought. Rational Egoism and Eudaimonia, on the other hand, promote identification and prioritization of values before any decision related to action is taken. These give importance to What over How, Content over Form, and therefore are from the Aristotelian Philosophy. Remaining schools are different versions of Platonic Philosophy.
-
Based on feedback to previously musical video, added a voiceover in American accent. Checkout this updated video on human motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZQKk_x_gqs
-
Final draft of video
It captures the essential concepts involved in Human Motivation, introduces the most popular model for motivating humans, identifies the gaps in that model and fixes them.
So checkout the video and share the feedback here or in Youtube. Hope its useful...!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lmHBjgSSHI
P.S: The ideas are derived from Central Principles of Objectivist Ethics
-
The information is needed for my research on the topic of “Behavioral school of management”, included in my upcoming book "Reinventing Management: Organizational Ethics from Objectivism". Most widely used and accepted theory here is “Maslow’s hierarchy of Values.” This is what I have written on the description of subject.
----------------------
Most influential here is Maslow’s theory of motivation, claiming that first motivators are physiological factors like food, shelter etc. After that come safety factors like insurance, then meaningful social relationships, then social status and reputation, and finally the individual’s need to find himself or herself. The final one is self-actualization.
--------------------
I wanted to know if any work has been done (or referred) by Objectivists in this regard?
-
Overall in employer-employee-customer relationship, you should understand following three things.
What is Central Purpose of your own Life?
How exactly is your job contributing to the Central Purpose of your Life?
How are your day to day activities contributing to your job and career, in the context of your Central Purpose of Life?
For e.g. if your Central Purpose of Life is to make medicine more accessible to masses(like Amazon made books more accessible to masses), the job can help you understand the specific problems in market related to the goal. After analyzing these problems you can research and come up with solutions. You can either apply solutions in your current job, and grow. Or switch to better job and apply the ideas in another company. Or start your own venture if you are confident and capable enough. Short term continue to improve yourself and the work environment you operate in.
-
Testing from other user that I have created.
-
Just testing,
I will participate.
HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
MAPPING
FUTURE
OF
OBJECTIVISM
HOW CAN OBJECTIVISM BECOME A DOMINANT IDEOLOGY?
INTRODUCTION
The article is for long time Objectivists only. I think at this point only long time Objectivists can clearly visualize the logistics for making the ideology mainstream. Philosophy of Kant, Christianity, and Islam being examples of mainstream ideologies. Personally, I have been reading Ayn Rand and Objectivist literature for more than 20 years now.
BACKGROUND
Ayn Rand in her title essay of the book For the New Intellectual explained how philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, & Kant came to dominate the Western Civilization. Further, this article by a long time Objectivist highlights the spread of ideas in a structural way.
Basically, there are primary philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, & Rand. Secondary philosophers like Plotinus, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, & Murray Rothbard (Libertarianism). Tertiary philosophers and intellectuals like Dr. Peikoff, intellectual activists, social reformers, political activists and so on…
GENERAL TRAJECTORY OF IDEAS
The Philosophical movement starts with primary philosophers who develop unique Metaphysics & Epistemology, and then derive Ethics, Politics, & Aesthetics from it. Sometimes like Kierkegaard or Murray Rothbard, some aspects of primary philosophy are picked, and secondary philosophy is developed. Tertiary philosophers structure diverse sources of primary or secondary philosophers into a single volume. Intellectuals and philosophers of science make certain implicit ideas explicit, and deep dive into specific subjects like Psychology, Economics, Education, and Sociology. Intellectual Activists and Broadcasters further disseminate ideas until these ideas reach to the man in street.
Examples include Dr. Peikoff as tertiary philosopher, John Rawls the father of DEI as intellectual, Dr. Tara Smith as Objectivist intellectual, and Dr. Yaron Brook as Intellectual Activist and Broadcaster.
Overall, here are the various stages in dissemination of ideas:
1. Philosophical Stage: Philosophy is created by primary or secondary philosophers, and then structured by tertiary philosophers. Sociologically, whole stage can be classified as Philosophical Movement.
2. Intellectual Stage: The structured philosophy is applied to sciences as in Induction in Physics by David Harriman, and Biological basis for Teleological Concepts by Dr. Harry Binswanger. Further, the Philosophy is also applied to subjects of Humanities like Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System by Dr. Tara Smith applying Objectivist ideas, or The Interpretation of Dreams by Freud applying Kantian ideas. Sociologically this stage can be classified as Intellectual Movement.
3. Social Stage: Once Intellectual Stage is fairly established, the philosophical ideas need to move from Ivory Tower to the society at large. Examples include Egalitarianism of John Rawls moving into the policy of Affirmative Action, Libertarianism into Tea Party Movement, or ideas of John Locke adopted by Benjamin Franklin and applied for interpreting day to day news headlines. The sociological form of this stage being Social Movement.
During Medieval Ages sermons in Church to regular folks being example of Christian philosophy acting in social realm.
4. Political Stage: After social movement, the next stage is Political Movement. Examples include American Revolution, conversion of Roman Emperors to Christianity and so on. Basically, considering high stakes in political decisions, social movement acts as an experimental ground for politics. That is, even though Philosophical Movement defines political principles, applying them at a state, national, or international level still requires creation of sufficient social ground.
5. Reinforcement Stage: While philosophical ideas like Objectivism travel through different stages in movement, the application of ideas is not always linear. That is, if the movement has reached social stage for example, it will still face intellectual and sometimes philosophical resistance. For e.g. Kant and his intellectual successors lead to the downfall of Enlightenment ideas, because the Enlightenment ideas were not sufficiently grounded despite reaching mainstream political stage.
Therefore, even after philosophy establishes political stage, movements in other stages also need to remain active. Conversely, if ideology is in lower stage, it may still have a higher stage version also. For example, social and political awareness of Ayn Rand’s fiction can act as a recruitment tool for the New Intellectuals.
CURRENT STATE OF OBJECTIVISM
Primary & Tertiary Stage: Ayn Rand wrote on all domains of philosophy in Galt’s Speech, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: An Unknown Ideal, and The Romantic Manifesto. Dr. Peikoff acted as tertiary philosopher to consolidate her ideas in Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Intellectual Stage: There has also been application in basic sciences through Induction in Physics by David Harriman, and Biological basis of Teleological Concepts by Dr. Harry Binswanger. In humanities we have legal application by Dr. Tara Smith. Dr. Peikoff has himself applied Objectivism to sociology in The DIM Hypothesis.
Current level: I think currently Objectivism needs to focus on Intellectual stage. However, given how deeply entrenched Kantian and Platonic ideas are in intellectual ecosystem, we need reinforcement of philosophical ideas as well. I think the reinforcement stage is working well through Dr. Brook, Don Watkins, Alex Epstein, Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Peter Schwartz, Ayn Rand Institute, and some more individuals & organizations.
However, it is difficult for non-intellectuals to consistently apply Objectivism, because many subjects like Economics[1], Psychology, and Management[3] have not been sufficiently investigated from the Objectivist perspective.
EXCEPTION TO THE LOGICAL FLOW OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS
Here are some examples where logical flow of philosophical ideas is not beneficial to the spreading of ideology. For irrational ideologies like Islam, it makes sense to go to political stage without spending too much time in Philosophical, Intellectual, or Social stage. Significant discussion risks premature exposure of irrational roots. Therefore, these ideologies focus on reinforcement stage, where social, intellectual, and philosophical enhancements can be done in a controlled environment. Environment in which heretic ideas can be suppressed through political force like the Blasphemy laws.
Ideas like Aristotelian philosophy and Objectivism however need to follow the logical progression of movements.
CONCLUSION
The importance of ideas in culture & also day to day activities have been clearly demonstrated by movements from Aristotle, Plato, & Kant in past 2000 years. Objectivism offers unparalleled growth for self and humanity. However, to reach the Atlantis, law of identity needs to be applied in social realm. That is, logical progression of movements needs to be followed.
POST SCRIPT
If Objectivism is in Intellectual stage, how can non-intellectuals apply it in their day-to-day lives?
First of all, it needs to be acknowledged that there will be more mistakes, as intellectual foundation is not sufficiently built. One should be prepared to recover and learn from such mistakes.
Secondly, the deviation from mainstream opinion will be severely punished, as other movements like Communism have wider impact.
Thirdly, significant effort is needed by Objectivist individuals to understand ideology of persons & institutions one is dealing with. And sometimes tactical or even strategic retreat is needed to safeguard one’s livelihood in a hostile environment. For example, discussing one’s Objectivist opinions with trusted individuals rather than in public or even private forums.
REFERENCES
Lesser known applications of Objectivism
[1] Objective Economics: How Ayn Rand's Philosophy Changes Everything about Economics
Amazon.com: Objective Economics: How Ayn Rand's Philosophy Changes Everything about Economics eBook : Buechner, M. Northrup: Kindle Store
[2] Reinventing Management: Organizational Ethics From Objectivism
Reinventing Management: Organizational Ethics From Objectivism - Kindle edition by Gupta, Rohin. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.