Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to Grames in The Anti-Concept of Anti-Reference; Paradox   
    (Definion 2)The concept of "anti-reference" refers to all pairs <C,r'> such that C is a concept with at least one non-referent, and r' is not a referent of C.
    The anti-referent(s) of the concept "anti-reference" are all concepts C with their referents r.   Anti-reference applied to itself is a double negative, so non-non r is simply r.   The anti-referent of the concept "anti-reference" is the concept "reference" by definition 1.  "Reference" refers to itself without contradiction.
  2. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to Grames in Universals   
    Last question first, I don't know well enough to try to answer.  I'm not a philosopher nor have I read closely Aristotle's Organon, and it has been a long time since I've read it at all.  University was decades ago for me and what familiarity I have with Aristotle since then mostly comes from secondary sources writing about what he meant.  Aristotle was a student of Plato so unless he could solve the problem of universals while also inventing logic and mastering every other contemporary field of knowledge he would carry over that basic approach from Plato, that essences are intrinsic to things or 'metaphysical' as described in this thread.
    'Epistemic universal' is redundant for people that accept and use Rand's epistemological theories but in contexts (such as this thread) where there are people seriously contending the case for other kinds of universals it is good to spell out in full what kind of universal is being referred to.
    A classic example comes to me by way of Kelley:
    So, children, blackberry bush, colors, thats 3 examples.   "Preconceptual awareness of qualitative recurrence", use that phrase a few times when speaking or writing and people will think you must be pretty smart.
  3. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from Grames in Universals   
    Agreed, there are fictitious concepts, imaginary concepts, ones that don't correspond to reality.
    Your statement could also be interpreted another way, as a universal that could be instantiated but has not been until now which is different than what I am talking about.
    I am bringing up an eternally uninstantiable universal/concept, basically, one that cannot be instantiated.
    (I am talking about something that I think does not exist i.e. there is no such thing).
    A contradiction can't be instantiated. Yet the concept exists.
    You will say that contradiction (similar to "nothing") is not a universal and yet I would argue that we identify contradictions all the time.
    A contradiction exists only in fact as a concept/universal, there is no metaphysical version of it.
    But if contradictions are metaphysical, then they have to exist.
    I am going along because you argue universals/concepts do exist metaphysically, independent of consciousness.
    In that paradigm, since uninstantiated universals exist independently of consciousness, they exist even if consciousness has never observed their instance.
    So numbers could have existed without "things" to be counted. Such a universe does not exist and for me is unimaginable.
    I am also arguing that the abstraction (number) would not exist if the act of counting has never been done (ever).
    (I will respond to the rest of the post)
  4. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from softwareNerd in What is Subjectivity?   
    Then I would initially argue that at a minimum, between reasonable people who understand the meanings of these terms, it helps the communication.
    I wouldn’t challenge “decision-making” as being subjective or intrinsic. I would rather challenge a perception or an understanding or a conclusion as being that.
    The issue of values is at the center of ethics, politics, and economics. It would have been great if a value was intrinsic. We would have fewer disagreements. And when we agree that things are a value to a “whom”, the implication can be heard that it is entirely relative and in that sense subjective.
    XYZ is beautiful. I say it is true it is a fact. You say it is not.
    Isn’t it proper for you to bring up the fact that I have put forth a subjective conclusion?
    Assuming I am reasonable, your identifying my statement as subjective should change the direction of the conversation. It should help me realize that just saying that it is beautiful justifiably should not necessarily get an agreement.
  5. Thanks
    Easy Truth got a reaction from EC in Why Objectivism is so unpopular   
    Okay, you have the talent and the passion and this is educational with some Objectivist principles. But one question still remains. How do kids/parents make the connection to Objectivism, or does that matter?
    And you took up the challenge and actually "did something". I can't help but respect that. 
    Now, between what you have and a TV or other media version, you either can do all aspects alone or you need a team. You also need perseverance. Is this the limit of your contribution or will you be willing to do more?
    Sometimes public domain is good and sometimes fewer people want to join your venture.  You might be able to create a crowdfunding campaign to fill in the gaps. Maybe you may need a topic solely dedicated to this. You know best.
    Time will tell, but in 3 years, people will look at your post and they may ask you, did you do it or not. If you did it, then maybe Objectivist can find ways to spread the word by repeating this type of thing.
  6. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth as Disvalue   
    You seem to be making the case that value is absolutely tied to truth. That rationality is a value because it leads to truth. That truth is almost identical to value. Or that value, at its core, is the truth (a constituent). A plant can't go toward an untrue sun, an imaginary sun, it will die in darkness.
    The implication is that even one single evasion can't be a value.
  7. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to MisterSwig in Jan Helfeld Interviews   
    The giveaway was his repeated idea of an ultimate value: "a long and happy life." Life is a continual process. It is a biological series of actions to gain values. So what he's saying is that his ultimate value is the entire lifelong process of gaining values that make him happy. In other words, his ultimate value is the collection of all the values he's ever gained during the course of his life. So we have this set of values, and inherent in each particular item is this idea of the Great Collection, the Ultimate Value. But the Ultimate Value doesn't really exist as a physical thing. It's just a collection that he imagines. It's not his specific, objective existence at that particular moment in time and in that particular context of knowledge. It's instead his total existence throughout time. And that's some kind of idealism.
  8. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to 2046 in What is love?   
    1. What is love?

    Although she didn't really write about it in particular detail, it's clear if we look at the preponderance of her statements that to Rand, love is seen in its typical modern psychological meaning. Love is an emotion responding to what one values highly. It is feeling of enjoyment and pleasure resulting in the desire to gain, keep, achieve, possess, be in close proximity to, etc. what one values. When used in a verb form in ordinary language, such as "I love everything beautiful," I think we can just interpret this as saying one values highly the thing in question and thus has the emotional response.

    The clearest source we have for this is a brief paragraph in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology where Rand is applying her theory of concept-formation to various instances and expounding on it, she mentions of love as "an emotion proceeding from the evaluation of an existent as a positive value and as a source of pleasure" (ITOE 34.)

    2. Is love rational, what does that mean? (And also how does ethics effect love?)

    If love is seen in the sense of an emotion responding to a high positive evaluation of something, then in this sense we can't say that it is rational or irrational. Emotions are automatic responses to values, so they themselves are neither. But the value-judgments themselves can be appraised by reason, according to Rand, so in that sense, we can ask whether it is rational to love the thing in question, in other words, if it is actually beneficial for us to value the thing.

    In terms of romantic love then, when we respond to the other person, we respond to being in that person's presence, having contact with that person, and all their attributes and virtues or positive qualities and integrate these things into our own happiness. So in asking if this love is rational, we ask whether or not these qualities and attributes are actually of positive benefit to us. It is this way also that love is determined by values and even philosophic premises, and so becomes a topic for ethics.

    3. How does one fall in love?

    This also would be a question more for psychology and not philosophy to answer. Rand doesn't address the issue (at least not directly), but I think the general idea is that, starting early in life, one has a set of tastes and responses to traits one starts forming based on associations, and these experiences accumulate and mix together with various judgments about the way things are to form one's emotional response to things. One can have conscious identification of these standards, or they can stay more subconscious and implicit. (Actually this kind of leads in to the next question.)

    4. What is "sense of life"?

    According to Rand, since the need for some fundamental questions about life are inescapable, whether we realize it or not, all men have a basic philosophy of life. But not all men hold their values or ideas in conscious, verbal form, and don't know the first thing about philosophy. Most people form their implicit views of "the basic nature of existence and man... subconsciously by means of an emotional generalization, by an identified unverbalized estimate of the value and meaning of their own existence." This is not a explicit philosophy, but basically an emotionally integrated core attitude toward life and experiences with it. This she calls a "sense of life." Rand is basically differentiating between the explicit, conscious views someone holds (a philosophy) and their subconscious, more deeply ingrained accumulated premises about life that guides their emotional reactions and ways they tend to integrate new experiences (sense of life.) Now, the two may be in line, or they may not; also, the two may be based on rational premises and values, or the may not. In Rand's aesthetics, the concept plays a central role in the relation of art to cognitive function and emotion, since one's sense of life is the basic way that one responds to art.

    Cf. Rand, The Romantic Manifesto, "Philosophy and Sense of Life," "Art and Sense of Life," "Art and Cognition" (in the revised edition.)
  9. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to epistemologue in The Humanitarian with the Trolley   
    The reason I'm stressing outcomes and consequentialism is because that's exactly what you're suppporting. Look at the things you're saying and tell me this is not an outcome-based, consequentialist ethics:
    "If a moral principle (not stealing) leads to you dying...the principle doesn't apply"
    "If an action causes you to die, it's immoral."
    "If an action causes you to live and flourish, it's moral."
    "we want to bring about flourishing, We're able to measure flourishing by the effects it has on one's life concretely"
       
    "the value of habits and virtues is from their consequences"
       
    "outcomes are how to measure if something is part of [morality]"
    You can recognize virtue by the values it produces in reality. Everything of value produced by man depended on his acting virtuously. But the issue of having virtue is distinct from the fruits of virtue. You can have virtue and act virtuously while losing everything.
    Roark cared more about his integrity than he did about any concrete value. He didn't measure his integrity by the concrete results, he measured it according to the standards of rational, moral principle. Refusing the commission because he wouldn't compromise his standards was an act of integrity without any concrete results. He wasn't just trying to produce the "best" concrete results that he could, he was trying to produce results that were good, according to his standards. The value he cared about wasn't in the buildings (the concrete results), it was in buildings done his way, in the integrity of their design, and in his integrity as a designer.
    Roark:
    Dominique:
     
    Quotes from Atlas:
     
     
    To answer your last point,
    I no longer support utilitarianism as a moral philosophy*. It is inconsistent with Objectivism. Intentionally killing an innocent person is morally unjustifiable - i.e. murder - regardless of the circumstances.
    * See my post in the metaphysics of death thread for some discussion of that:
     
  10. Confused
    Easy Truth reacted to Nicky in The Humanitarian with the Trolley   
    Thought experiments like this are the moral philosophy equivalent of product testing a porcelain doll by shooting it out of a cannon.
    In reality, the porcelain doll isn't designed to survive getting shot out of a cannon, and moral codes aren't designed to be able to answer unrealistic situations which have all context stripped from them. Moral codes should be able to provide an answer in all REAL situations, not in all hypothetical ones.
    The reason why Objectivist Ethics does that is because it starts out with the very fundamental premise of rational selfishness, which applies to all situations (there's no situation in which you can't be selfish). And then it formulates more specific principles, to cover the most common specifics we face (i.e. there are more specific principles that help us live in civilized society).
    The reason why the trolley problem breaks Objectivist Ethics is because it removes all context that would allow someone to decide which option is the selfish one. Like I said, in real life there are no such situations. So an ethics aimed at living in reality doesn't need to cover this hypothetical.
  11. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to epistemologue in The Humanitarian with the Trolley   
    Tracinski states,
    This is not what Ayn Rand says in her essay "The Ethics of Emergencies".
    The essay begins with her asking us to consider the implications of someone who begins their approach to the subject of ethics with lifeboat scenarios - which she regards as a disintegrated, malevolent, and basically altruistic approach to the subject, that cannot ultimately yield a rational system of ethics.
    She did not say that lifeboat scenarios are "irrelevant", that they are the 0.01 of cases that morality is "not intended for", she says exactly the opposite:
    And she absolutely did not say that moral principles are "intended for the 99.9% of existence":
    She does not say to act in accordance with your hierarchy of values 99.9% of the time, she says always. Sacrificing a greater value to a lesser one is not okay 0.01% of the time, it's never okay. She did not say that moral principles apply to 99.9% of one's choices - she says they apply to all choices.
    She then goes to take those principles of ethics that apply in the 99.9% of existence in which one is not in an emergency, and proceeds to apply those very same principles to emergency situations:
    As we can see in this example, the virtue of integrity, which applies in the 99.9% of existence in which one is not in an emergency, also prescribes what one ought to do in the 0.01% of life in which one is in an emergency, too.
    I started a separate thread answering what one ought to do in the trolley problem here:
     
  12. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Quickest Cure for Intrinsic, Mystical, Morality   
    I notice that morality can be seen as the code that guides you vs. a the attribute of "right" vs. "wrong".
    One can separate "right" vs. "wrong" from life. A missile can hit the target in many right ways and fail in many wrong ways.
    When a person realizes that "I could die if I do life the wrong way", it can have a powerful emotional response in the listener. I have noticed that that the (life and death) argument is weak (unimpactful) when arguing the morality of rights. But it has a strong emotional impact when used in personal morality context.
    Personal morality is what seems to be unfamiliar to people. I noticed it recently, having a discussion with a progressive, I said: "Do you realize that chopping your hand off is immoral?" He said, why would that mean immoral, morality is always about the other guy. It is only relevant is a social context".
    Bottom line, I think that morality is usually not discussed in life an death terms and I think that is what is missing.
     
  13. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Truth as Disvalue   
    I find this is a very impressive post. Obviously, based on some deep soul searching.
    There is data in Psychology circles that would support your position. What if that which you are proposing, in fact, is not an evasion? That it is living life proper to man. A school of psychology called "existential psychology", not existentialism goes deeply into the dragons you are fighting. You are not alone. On some level, all of humanity struggles with it.
    Ironically, you are facing the truth, the truth of who you are and what you really need. Takes a lot of courage. As I said, very impressive.
     
  14. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to aequalsa in Whose is this life anyway   
    Thompson has the power to kill Galt, but that's not the same as owning his life. Without Galt's acquiescence he cannot force him to design a motor, for example. I Galt's life belongs to Galt because nothing else is metaphysically possible.For a real life example, you'll witness this very same principal every time our statist rulers try to raise taxes. No matter what the rate, they can't yet get more than 24%of the GDP. If they raise taxes on income in a certain bracket, people stop making that income. They can't force productivity and especially they can't force thought.
  15. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to Grames in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    The only perspective that matters is that of S.  All S can do is be methodical and conscientious about his reasoning and general alertness.  It takes an external perspective, frequently the omniscient or "God's Eye" view, to judge that S does not really have knowledge.  This is why communication with others is so helpful for being objective, it allows S to better check his premises and expand his awareness of relevant factors.
    The same critique can be applied to the doctrine of Justified True Belief. Who is it exactly that is standing in judgement as a final authority on what is True or not?  There is an implied omniscient perspective, but no individual has access to that perspective so JTB is not a workable theory.
    In short, one can be justified and still be in error.  If knowledge must be guaranteed to be true before it can count as knowledge then there is no such thing as knowledge and epistemology is a dead end rather than an ongoing problem to be solved.
  16. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to organon1973 in What is "Truth" and "Fact"...and aren't they subje   
    Truth involves the grasp of fact by a mind. Facts are objective. If something is established to correspond to fact, i.e. to reality, it is true.
    The concept of truth exists in the context of consciousness. Fact is metaphysical; truth is epistemological, though informed by fact. Facts can exist without being true, i.e. without having been validated as such by a consciousness, though we do not know them as fact until they are established to be true.
    Take for example an apple, that is, at present, red.
    Its redness is a fact. And it is true that it is red. What do I mean when I say this? I mean the proposition "it is red" corresponds to fact, i.e. reality. My belief that it is red is valid.
    There are any number of facts in the universe that have not yet been identified as truths, for example the diameters of as yet undiscovered stars, or the biological natures of as yet undiscovered organisms, or aspects of our own biological natures that have not yet been investigated.
    But when a truth is identified, the facts identified therein are established as such once the proposition is established to be true.
    How does one know if something is true, i.e. corresponds to reality? By means of reason, the faculty that establishes truth by means of logic. Reality is firm, reason and logic are objective, and contradictions cannot exist.
  17. Haha
    Easy Truth reacted to whYNOT in Existentialism and Objectivism   
    I do so enjoy a thoughtful,rational and knowledgeable argument against Objectivism to make me challenge my premises.

    This ain't one.
  18. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from DonAthos in All About Evasion   
    There is a paradox about (internal) evasion that makes the process of dealing with it very hard. It is at the core of the philosophical question "How can a person lie to themselves?". How does a consciousness prevent consciousness of what it is conscious of?
     
  19. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to DonAthos in Is objectivism consequentialist?   
    In what way? If this is what you mean, no debate around here (or as far as I can tell, in the world) is ever settled such that all parties are agreed.
    It's easy enough to say that, from the point of view of the innocents harmed, blowing up a bus is immoral. But ethics, per Objectivism, are based upon self-interest. The moral prohibition against the initiation of the use of force is meant to be as self-interested as anything else -- not fashioned to protect "others," or the wider world, but for the sake of the person who abides by it.
    But does the suicidal man stand to gain anything (in reason) by refraining from hurting others upon his exit? (I say that he does.)
    Right, that's the way the logic goes. So when you've decided that you're no longer playing to win (or that you cannot play football), then you can run any formation you'd like; you may even blow up the stadium. It's anything goes from there on out.
    In theory, this should also mean that a person with a terminal illness is no longer bound by morality (because they understand that they are never going to play football again, no matter what play they run). Some suggest that such a person will continue to drift along on their habits... and so we shouldn't expect too much chaos. However, someone who has given these matters sufficient thought (and with the proper philosophical perspective) ought to be able to recognize their changed context...
    Yes -- this is my essential answer. "Legacy" runs the risk of implying that this is "for others," but then you continue to identify the true root of it: that it is the experience of value in the present, the pride, the pleasure, the happiness that moral action brings, which continues to make our decisions morally significant, even in the face of (nigh) instantaneous death.
    In another thread, discussing this same issue, I raised the Buddhist parable "The Monk, the Tiger and the Strawberry " as an example of moral action in the face of extremity. I believe that, so long as there is a self -- so long as life remains, so long as choice remains, and so long as our choices matter to our experience of life -- then there is the possibility of moral action, to wring out for ourselves the best possible experience of life, whatever our present context happens to be.
  20. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in How to Morally Judge Amoral vs. Immoral Men   
    Poison is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It's nothing more than what it is.
    Drinking poison because you thought it was Coca-Cola is neither moral nor immoral; it's nothing more than an unfortunate accident.
    Drinking poison with full knowledge of what it is (barring any truly extraordinary circumstances, such as a terminal illness) is immoral.
    The fact that something is bad for you doesn't necessarily make you evil for doing it, if you didn't know any better. You're not omniscient.
     
    The Arabian treatment of women is a symptom of their underlying view of mankind; that our proper place is as Allah's interchangeable and disposable slaves. I do not know of an honest way to make that kind of mistake. 
    It's a somewhat technical part of this but I suspect that they do actually know better (in the same way that a playground bully, who has never heard of "rights" before, still feels the need to hide the nature of his actions). They pretend not to know better the same way they pretend that the Koran could ever make any sense; the same way Western Christians pretend that America was a product of Christianity, while the dark ages were not, and communists pretend that the USSR wasn't really communism.
    Ignorance excuses nothing if it's self-inflicted.
     
  21. Like
    Easy Truth got a reaction from DonAthos in All About Evasion   
    Yes, a specific purpose, the one that fits best is the protection of one's self-worth. An attack on self-worth is a trigger for evasion. In general, the more attacks on self-worth in a discussion, the more evasion there is. Old world cultures know this fact so their public deal making takes (the other's side's) "saving face" into consideration. As far as I can remember Branden did make a reference to that.
    The other purpose of (internal) evasion is to prevent the possibility of one's worldview to fall apart. Just imagine, if one day, you found out that socialism in fact worked. It would feel like you are being tricked, "it can't be true" etc. Suspicion can be overwhelming. Leftists also go through that too, they think "what my parents told me, what my tribe believes, all the people I admire told me that socialism works and that capitalism is a virus that needs to be stamped out".  If one piece of the fabric of knowledge goes in doubt then, what else did these "admired people" say that was wrong. Now I can't count on anything. I am suddenly nothing if I believe that Capitalism works. I have to start all over, all the respect I have accumulated is gone. No, No, it is easier to push the thought away and push the people that bring the thought away too.
    Which means that it is to an Objectivist's self-interest to be gentle/understanding in these types of discussions otherwise the opponent is cornered/encouraged to evade.
  22. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"   
    Primarily that it's an extraspective (instead of introspective) thing; i.e. it's somewhere out in physical reality, and not in your own head.
    As for whether or not everything is existential, that's ultimately true, but it's still a useful concept (like "infinity" or the way a map of a city doesn't account for the curvature of the Earth). The introspective idea of "a concept" looks very different from the extraspective neurons and dendrites it's ultimately composed of.
  23. Like
    Easy Truth reacted to softwareNerd in Pleasure and Value   
    I think you're trying to focus on the point-in-time thing we should try to optimize. Rand's "Objectivist Ethics" highlights two key linkages:
    first, that this pleasure is -- in turn -- based on our biology.. on the survival of life (today we might speak of this in terms of the role of pain/pleasure in evolution). "Good" (i.e. recommended action) is thus (mostly) tied to survival in its original cause second, she takes the focus away from point-in-time pleasure, to acknowledge that there are causal links between things. Seeing the pain in a dentist's visit is not good enough, we have to understand the pleasures and pains from the visit as a causally linked set. That's how we get to: "how to we get a better mix". The decisions move from considering a single thing (imagine someone making an excuse not to visit the dentist, because he's focusing on the pain alone). "Good" is the concept that embraces the evaluation of such mixes, and going far beyond these small bundles, to encompass one's life. Good it is the integrated evaluation of pain and pleasure. Only by starting from these two ideas can Rand end up saying Productive Work is one of the highest ideals. That's quite a huge integration that includes hundreds of observations that aren't mentioned in the essay. That's her key achievement: not her focus on pleasure -- which hedonists already took a shot at -- but explaining how we go from there to a message that sounds like "work hard".
    The hedonists had already praised pleasure, but nobody can take a short-range approach too seriously. Aristotle spoke of Eudemia, and his golden mean is one way of conceptualizing the various choices we have to make all the time. The Epicureans had spoken about enjoying life in a relaxed way. These were attempts integrate the idea that selfish pleasure is the core of Ethics with other observations about the world.
    The Stoics took a different tack: they recognized that men are driven to do "big things" which cannot be explained by "live a relaxed life" or '"do only what you need to be comfortable". They admired these men. At some level, they were admiring productivity, but could not quite explain why it was the good. They ended up with a somewhat "duty ethics". The Bhagavad Gita got to the same point too: work (karma) is good because it is, because it is a universal law. They both assumed a feedback: where the universe rewards us for doing our duty. The only alternative to work seemed asceticism, and Eastern philosophies thought that was good too...but, we can't all be ascetics. So, working hard was what the typical person had to do... just because. There was no tie to happiness, leave along to pleasure.
    Rand stepped through the horns of this ancient dilemma. 
    In summary: I agree with you that pleasure is key, but it is key the way a dot of paint is key to a painting, or a word is key to Atlas. It's a starting point, but the bulk of Ethics is explaining how it comes together across our lives.
    Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind. By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good... don't ask any more questions!
    This is why I think the recent moves by The Undercurrent/Strive: abandoning the focus on Politics, and linking Objectivist Ethics to individual happiness, is great.
     
     
  24. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to dream_weaver in Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"   
    Miss Rand used it in The Ayn Rand Letter
    Vol. II, No. 2  October 23, 1972
    A Nation's Unity--Part II
    Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man's nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered).
    For more on "a lone wolf", consider The Ayn Rand Letter
    Vol. II, No. 18  June 4, 1973
    Selfishness Without A Self
    I consider Selfishness Without a Self a part III of The Missing Link, Vol. II, No. 16 and 17
    As to long range planning, it is referenced in Galt's Speech:
    "So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons—no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons—the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he's unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants—who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts—to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows that gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.
    This should give you a decent start.
     
     
  25. Thanks
    Easy Truth reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in Is Social Awareness a Value, a Virtue or a Second Class "Goodness"   
    That's exactly the right generalization; very good. The phrase I've found most useful is that man is a "contractual animal". And being able to respond appropriately to any individual's nature (which can sometimes mean the difference between life and death) requires social awareness.
    We don't need each other to survive, though (yet another strike against survivalism), nor should we be each others' primary concerns. Other people can help you to flourish (indeed, I don't know if it's possible in isolation) but you cannot and must not attempt to flourish through them.
    The difference consists of autonomy.
     
    Human life consists of two kinds of motion. Existentially we walk, eat, breathe, plant crops, make tools, build factories, trade and organize companies (etc); we do all of the countless things we must do to survive. It would be impossible us to flourish if we stopped because we would be very dead. We're also in constant personal motion throughout our lives. We learn and grow, we forget, our preferences wax, wane or change entirely; who we are as people is always changing. And you have no choice about whether to change or not; as long as you're alive, it's built into your nature. The only control you have is in which direction to go.
    Now, the key to being a healthy, happy and successful human is to consciously determine the course of your own motion, in both senses. If you take charge of your own personal development and live to be whoever it is you want to be then you'll be able to walk into any job interview or first date with your head high and without a trace of fear, guilt or doubt; if you live your life just doing whatever strikes your fancy then you may or may not become somebody you can tolerate. If you choose carefully when and where to plant your crops and how much to keep in reserve (etc) then you'll always have food on your table; if not then not.
    But a choice requires knowledge of and feelings about its consequences. Letting some momentary impulse or habit dictate your behavior is doing what any animal can do; not deciding. And no two people on Earth have the same beliefs or desires to decide by. Even if we somehow cloned a human mind (from childhood memories to their feelings about the previous night's dinner), after any length of separation it'd be uniquely different from the original (since both would've gone on acquiring new experiences and changes independently).
    This makes independence essential to flourishing. You have to be able to think for yourself (pursuing in your own way whatever knowledge you find important, revising anything that doesn't make absolute sense to you and maintaining everything that does), want what you want (exploring, evaluating and expanding on your emotional mechanism), "see through your own eyes and think with your own brain", go out to act on your decisions and change your mind as frequently as may be necessary - without having to explain or justify a damn thing to anybody else.
     
    If you can't take autonomous action then you're not in charge of your own life and you're screwed.
    This is part of why you should never make another person your highest priority (the other part being that to emotionally invest your self in things you can't control -such as other people- is a recipe for frustration and self-torture). We can (and should) value each other to some degree because we can make each others' lives immeasurably better in so many different ways (and, again, I'm not sure it's even possible for us to flourish alone) but at the end of the day each of us has to be allowed to come or go as we please, without restriction.
    And that's "the point at which social consciousness becomes second-handedness". That was an extremely sloppy and misleading for me to phrase it, and I'm sorry about any potential confusion; I hope this at least alleviated some of it.
     
×
×
  • Create New...