blackdiamond

I have participated in a number of prudent-predator discussions, and i am quite certain that this is not similar to them (besides your questionable characterisation of the prudent predator debate itself). The pro-prudent predators reject an Objectivist principle. In this thread I am only rejecting a particular interpretation of an Objectivist principle. And no one has denied that. [Notice that you have now qualified "to live" as "to live on principle" which is a better characterisation of the Objectivist argument in prudent-predator debates]. And no one has denied that. No one has denied this either. What is being asked is whether "rationality as applied to specific aspects of life" can in fact be applied in some such specific aspects while not being applied in other specific aspects. Would you reject the existence of its application in one specific aspect if there is another specific aspect in which it is NOT applied based on your premise that this - application in one and not others - is IMPOSSIBLE? This "painfully obvious answer" does not answer my question at all; it only contradicts your position as I understand it. At no point have I wondered whether he should avoid this or not (he should). What I have been asking about is what your statement in fact implies: by saying "a rational man would AVOID this," you are admitting that "this" is actually POSSIBLE. How can one strive to avoid a state that is in fact impossible to exist? (It would be irrational for a rational man to strive to avoid an impossible state, don't you think?) Before you continue hitting your straw men as Miovas is chronically wont to do, I will paste what I have already stated earlier:

Look. I really want to see your next post on this thorny issue. So... I believe that Capitalism Forever is a Christian and a Puritan. I actually saw him singing in the men's choir of the Cathedral of Mary and Joseph last Sunday when I visited London!

Hm. I've now lost ALL hope. You either can't see why such sentences are unjust and offensive at this stage of the discussion (especially since I've even stated that I believe the virtues are integrated), or you are doing it deliberately in order to "chase" me from this community because you still believe it should only be for a small clique of "rational" people. I have made repeated requests that you stop discussing your perceived failures of my mind (until you've fully demonstrated the correctness of your position - by clearly showing how my position contradicts a basic axiom or a well-known fact of reality), but you still continue to ignore such requests. As aequalsa's honest statement above (and those of others here) shows, it (your interpretation) is apparently not yet a well-established fact of reality, which makes your personalistic approach to the discussion wholly inappropriate. If you can not grant my request (of simply desisting from such mind-impugning statements), and can not even deign to explain why you can not grant it, then you simply do not respect the mind of the person you are engaging. It's difficult to continue discussion with you under such conditions.

With all due respect, to hold to an existential proposition like that without evidence (as admitted) is to hold an arbitrary belief. Any attempt to justify such an arbitrary proposition is rationalization.

So you never consider the possibility that your understanding could be wrong even though you have "thought it through"? And don't you think it only detracts from the debate when you keep emphasising (indirectly) that your opinion is Objectivism itself and (by implication) anyone who disagrees with it has therefore disagreed with Objectivism? I would think it is more productive to simply focus on defending your position with logical arguments, and then we will all be able to see that you are indeed the one who has understood the philosophy perfectly. Okay, back to the issue: So maybe she's not his highest value; maybe he married her too early, before he could properly judge her. He has stayed with her because he doesn't want to be away from his lovely children. Or WHATEVER. Point is, he is cheating on her, man. Don't tell me what he should say to her or that he should leave if he is rational and all that because that's not the issue here. The issue simply is: does cheating or lying (to wife or anyone, including taxi driver) necessarily lead to un-productiveness (at work)? ALWAYS? So are you admitting that there are situations where cheating on your wife might not in fact "violate honesty and justice at work"? (Please answer this question directly. Thanks.)

I am saying that it could affect it or it might not. I am saying I see no evidence that it necessarily will (affect your productivity). The more I think about specific situations, the more I see no evidence for such a universal claim. I will need to see evidence that, for example, a world chess champion will necessarily become less "productive" in his work (as a chess player) just because he's been cheating on his wife.

I am not having any problem "with the Objectivist virtues". I said this before after you said a similar thing only two posts ago, and I have said it again, but it won't make a difference to you (as predicted). You will keep saying the same thing in different words; you will keep emphasising an intellectual failure on my part, as a substitute for an actual argument (which is what i meant by "attacking me," instead of my argument). This is a discussion on conflicting interpretations or understandings of the integration of the virtues. You have one understanding, I have a different one. Until you have reached the point in your argument where all questions against your position are answered, all contradictions among your statements cleared, (and all fallacies in my arguments pointed out) there's no point rushing to a discussion on someone's "failure" to understand, or grasp, the subject matter. You seem to be working from the psychologically dangerous premise that your understanding of any subject in Objectivism is necessarily the correct one, such that when one challenges YOUR understanding, then they have also challenged Objectivism itself (Ayn Rand's understanding). Anyway, let's get back to the discussion. There are two "understandings" here: 1. if one cheats on his wife, he can not exhibit productiveness at work (your position). 2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position). [Note this carefully: I am NOT saying it is right or good to do this (number 2); I am only saying it is POSSIBLE. Neither am I saying that it is impossible for someone to be consistently virtuous, in every area. Telling me about Hank Rearden is therefore totally pointless and wasteful (of consciousness and time) since I have not refused that one can be consistently virtuous; you are beating a straw man. In my last discussion with you I brought out examples of real people who apparently exhibited great productiveness in their work, but who also exhibited some apparent irrationality in other aspects of their lives. Because you believe that when one is virtuous in one area, they are virtuous in all areas and in every way, you failed to answer whether to judge these real people as honest or dishonest and preferred to keep talking about Hank Rearden and Mike Hammer!]

So? Why would you care what the world thinks about you - and whether or not it is "reaffirmed"?

Ah, you've added a significant qualifier this time around (to achieve some consistency?). Your theory applies only to those fortunate few who FULLY understand Objectivism! I'm sure even you can see the absurdity of that statement, but I can predict (from my experience with you) that you will neither acknowledge this nor address it directly (without getting into another long psychoanalysis of Hank Rearden or his friends; and without attacking me).

Well. Okay? I'm willing to negotiate: can we call it "question 2b"?

I think we all probably agree on the first question. Every virtue involves other virtues to some degree. The second question you identify is probably also less controversial (than the third below, which is my actual question): my own view currently is that a person is honest if they always speak and act according to the facts of reality (as they perceive this reality - sometimes influenced by any number of factors, ie sometimes mistaken). However, my question is a third one: not concerning the same virtue in different spheres, but concerning DIFFERENT virtues in DIFFERENT spheres or areas. Thus, does integrity in marriage necessarily influence/determine productiveness at work, for example? Different virtues in different areas, not the same virtue involving other virtues (question 1) or indeed the same virtue in different spheres (Q2). My position is that different virtues in different areas do not necessarily "control" each other (deterministically) and that one can practice vice in one area and virtue in another area quite consistently, although such a one will obviously not be happy because the virtues ought to be integrated in practice, as they are in theory.

Geez, why do you find it necessary to always talk like that (ie. condescendingly)? I do not have "a problem in understanding the Objectivist virtues", I simply have a problem with YOUR understanding of the Objectivist virtues, and I currently do not have any hope whatsoever that you are able to directly address questions that simply seek reconciliation between your apparently contradictory statements.

It's not always the case that the affair is with someone that you value that highly, I think (and I'm not saying that's rational). Not if it's kept "utterly secret"!

Is there something the good Aristotle wrote in there that is specifically applicable to the question at hand? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

I wanted to hear your fuller comment after you finish that course since you said you are only half way through, before I think about your comment more. But anyway... I think we will still need to think about some particular concretes to see if your theory fully ties in with experience [For example, a man cheats on his wife - will this necessarily affect his (intellectual and practical commitment to) productivity or productiveness (as a software programmer, comedian, singer, body guard, or whatever he does?) Why will his dishonesty in marriage necessarily result in an irrational approach to his software programming (to whatever degree)? Do you believe this is really what happens in real life?] - Just thinking aloud.

The universe supports the individual? Against what? (Against natural forces/disasters, etc - i.e. against the universe?) The individual supports himself through his mind. [bTW the description in the first post above is a description of the sculpture (not an interpretation - literal or metaphorical) and it is very accurate: "a human figure supporting the universe, seen from the back from head to hip."] We survive, primarily through reason, Mr. Spock .

This thread has been quite enlightening so far. Thank you, everyone. However the essential question has not been addressed. I will expand on it. Since the virtues are integrated, is it a fact that finding one virtue in someone is finding all the other virtues in him? Would it follow that, if we had sufficient evidence for the presence of a certain virtue in an individual then this is also sufficient evidence (by implication) for the presence of all the other virtues? Thus, if we find a software programmer who is profoundly and consistently productive - a Marc Andreessen perhaps - should we also take it for granted that this man is (therefore) also very honest, rational, independent, just, proud, etc? Should I trust Andreessen with my money simply based on how I have judged him as a productive person?

Just two quick points: 1. Pride is a virtue. Perhaps you were thinking of self esteem? 2. If there is a “fundamental virtue", i think that would be rationality and not honesty?

-bold mine. I don’t see how you can conclude that a certain pleasure “doesn't harm me in the long term” without identifying (the source of) that pleasure; without explaining that pleasure.

Arising from the Judging Other People thread, what does "integration of virtues" (i.e. that fact that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated) really mean? Does it mean that if someone is productive, for example, then he is necessarily (and to the same degree) honest, proud, independent, rational, etc? I do not think so, but I wish to hear what others think it means (before I short-circuit the discussion). Thanks.

I don't think you ought to take care of your children as a duty - just because you bore them (what about adopted children?) or for whatever other reason. You ought to take proper care of them because you love them. And if you are a rational man, you will love your children (as young and innocent humans, with their natural potential for virtue and greatness). If you do not love your children, which means you are irrational, you are still not duty-bound to take care of them - you should give them up for adoption or whatever other options would be readily available in a free society. This would actually be good for them since they would not have to be brought up by an irrational parent (or an unloving parent). That's my initial take on it.

Where did I say you are being evasive? I said "APPARENT evasiveness". It appeared that way. And I gave the evidence to show why it appeared that way: I asked you the same question several times and you never answered it, even when I said a 'yes' or 'no' would suffice. You have refused to say if he was dishonest, preferring only to compare him to other people, even though your earlier statement suggested that you think he was dishonest. Precisely. The issue is not HOW MUCH of religion he had, but whether he had religion. The issue is not HOW MUCH dishonesty he had, but whether he had dishonesty (by virtue of the fact that he had religion). And as you said yourself, one quote (or one interview) is not enough to show everything he believed (which is why in this particular interview he did not mention Ayn Rand but in the one I quoted from he did). Spillane was not too different from many Jehovah's Witnesses: they generally take a logical and scientific approach to life (read their Awake publication which generally addresses social problems scientifically and quotes secular academic experts on many of these issues), but they also have a very religious side to them (Spillane went to church five times a week, and as the quote I gave showed, his moral standard was whether or not God permitted a certain action, see his comment on alcohol). There are many other people from different religious movements that are like that. He's also proud that he was able to socialize with a few people that he mentions, though he doesn't mention any religious figures. The only thing that bother me about the interview is that he does not mention having been friends with Ayn Rand -- in fact he doesn't mention her at all. That bothers me a lot more than him saying he believes that God is Everpresent. And since you are sure Spillane is not one of these, HOW exactly did you know this? Where did you get your evidence to know that "evidently" he did not reject her philosophy? Interesting. So now your statement is reduced to "every person who is religious is dishonest if they have studied Ayn Rand's philosophy and still rejects it." This is certainly good news for religious people because I am quite certain that the vast majority of them (perhaps 99.9999 percent) have never studied Ayn Rand's philosophy or even heard of Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Indeed. You see no indication whatsoever that Mickey Spillane - the man who knew Rand very personally - could be one of the people who tried to study her philosophy; you see more "indication" that he was just like one of those many fans of Ayn Rand who never even knew there was a philosophy behind the novels? I asked you a question: was Spillane dishonest? You said he was not as honest as X, or was more honest at work than in personal life. I asked you if you understood that this statement means he was dishonest (since to be honest is to be TOTALLY honest, in EVERY area). And if you accept the logical conclusion, begining from your idea of integration of virtues, that therefore you can not call him productive or rational, etc. To my point that your statement meant he was dishonest, you simply said I was being rationalistic. When I asked you to show me how this is so, you said something that was incoherent (to explain my "being rationalistic"): that I was condemning Spillane! And to other requests for you to confirm if you thought he was dishonest, you just kept comparing him to other people, which has nothing to do with whether or not he was dishonest (just more honest than them or less dishonest). And above all, you seem unable or unwilling to address this simple question, and insist (even now) on comparing Spillane with other people (other religious people in this case), instead of taking account of the statements you have made which are clearly contradicting themselves (as my last post has shown), and yet you still ask me to give evidence as if you are interested in addressing any of the evidence I have given. You could have easily taken each of the statements I made above which indicated contradiction and showed how they were not actually contradicting each other or contradicting your stated principle, but you decided instead to only quote me on a statement which is totally irrelevant to my argument. And this is what you've been doing consistently (as anyone can see by going to the last few posts). It's good we both agree that a rational conversation on this topic can not continue. [ed by DO to repair quote]

For those reading this thread who might be confused by what is going on, let me summarise the discussion with Mr. Miovas. Mr. Miovas' position is that the virtues of Objectivism are integrated such that one person can not be moral in one area and immoral in another area (that is to have one virtue and not another). My position is that it is possible to be moral in one area and immoral in another (e.g. to be productive at work but unjust with your daughters, etc). How did this come about? I claimed that someone can be honest even if they are motivated by something that's not necessarily right, eg religion. Mr. Miovas said a person can not be religious and honest. I brought up Victor Hugo as a person who was religious and honest. Mr. Miovas says Hugo only used God as a conception of the ideal man [which is partly true, of course] and this is why his heroes were not altruistic, etc. I said according to Les Miserables, Hugo also believed in God as God [a real being], and his heroes were indeed altruistic. Mr. Miovas apparently admitted this by saying this explains why Hugo's heroes are killed in the end, and why there's no real sexual pleasure in his novels, etc. But Mr. Miovas still had to reconcile this with his premise that one can not be religious and honest since Miss Rand obviously thought Hugo was honest. So, he introduces another term: "mistaken". He says Hugo was MISTAKEN rather than dishonest;someone can be mistaken and honest, thus Hugo was "mistaken and productive". Hugo was merely mistaken because had not come across a better philosophy (a secular moral philosophy) and did not have the intellect to come up with such a rational philosophy; it had to take Ayn Rand many years later to come up with this rational philosophy. Now he makes the claim: if someone does come across a rational philosophy and still continues to be religious, one is dishonest (not just mistaken). So, I bring out Mickey Spillane. Someone who certainly came across Objectivist philosophy as he had read Rand's novels, by Mr. Miovas' own admission. Mr. Miovas says firstly that Spillane "evidently" did not understand the philosophy in those novels. He was "not a philosophic person". But then Mr. Miovas says Spillane was not as honest as his characters who did not become religious. SO WE have a situation here: Is Mr. Miovas saying Spillane was merely mistaken or he was dishonest? If he is saying he was dishonest, then this contradicts his earlier statement that you can not be dishonest in one area and virtuous in another. At this point, Mr. Miovas seems to say both things about Spillane ("mistaken" and "dishonest"): In the above quote, Mr. Miovas is attaching Spillane's religiosity to a lack of virtue (a lack of total honesty). But in the next quote, he detaches virtue from it and says he was just "mistaken" (like Hugo): So, in one breath Mr. Miovas is saying Spillane was just mistaken, but in another he is saying he was "not as honest as ..." or "more honest when working ..." So, because of this contradiction, I asked Mr. Miovas to just tell me directly if he thinks Spillane was dishonest or not. But he says he has answered numerous times with numerous examples, and my "non-understanding" is not his fault! To sum my summation, For those who may be confused with this apparent evasiveness from Mr. Miovas, it is coming from this statement he made earlier, which is at the centre of this debate: So, if he says Spillane was dishonest, then he has to deny that he was productive (the man who wrote seven of the top ten bestselling novels of all time in his day - and he had written only seven books by then!). But if he says he was honest, then he has to reconcile that with this: -emphasis mine. In his last few posts, Mr. Miovas has even become confused about my position. He thinks I do not appreciate Spillane and do not consider him virtuous (because he was religious), which is why he is now telling me that I do not understand the importance of art, etc. This is after I already corrected his previous post in which he thought I was condemning Spillane ("being rationalistic") by telling him that my position is the exact opposite of what he was accusing me of! Given this strange turn of events, I see no way that this discussion can continue rationally.

Hm. Fascinating. I wish someone could step into this discussion and show me where I'm missing Mr. Miovas' direct answer to my question.

Perhaps putting this as a multiple-choice question will help. Is your position on Spillane that: a. He was dishonest in that one area, but can still be judged as an honest man [because that "area" was not dominant over the honest part of him]. b. He was dishonest, period.[because a man can not be both 'honest' and 'dishonest' since "a is a" and "the virtues are integrated", etc]. c. Both a and b. d. Neither a nor b.