Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying wide abstractions are not tied to reality and therefore that they do not contain all of the abstractions subsumed under them? Or are you saying that just because you can do something in your head it must necessarily be tied to reality so long as one follows the rules of procedure? Or are you saying in your metalogic statement that following procedure is more important than being connected to reality? Take the following set of statements that are in the form of a syllogism: All zigwams are lious All jetrinocs are zigwams Therefore all jetrinocs are lious The above is not a logical statement because the terms do not refer to anything in reality. For example: All pigs are green All pencils are pigs Therefore all pencils are green The above is not a logical statement by the metalogic of Objectivism; precisely because all pigs are not green and because all pencils are not pigs. It's just complete and utter non-sense. A supposedly logical statement is not logical unless the terms refer to something in reality in a non-contradictory manner.

I'm not denying that a mathematician can operate on a very abstract level, using abstractions from abstraction from abstractions. But those abstractions don't mean anything unless they are tied to reality. Meaning does not come about because one has a symbol related to another symbol by means of a third symbol. The symbols related to symbols in the sentences I have just used have no meaning, unless they refer to something in reality. And it is only by doing this that one can say a statement is either logical or it is not. And abstractions from abstractions are not empty, they contain all of the referents subsumed under the abstraction. A wide abstraction, such as "animal," contains other abstractions, such as "dog," "cat," "horse," "pig," "snake," etc. which ultimately refer to actual dogs, cats, horses, pigs, snakes, etc.; otherwise, it has no meaning. Regarding computers doing mathematics, what I am getting at is the following: If one takes one cup of water and pours it into a glass, and then takes another one cup of water and pours it into the same glass, one then has two cups of water in the glass. But the glass did not do addition. The mental process of realizing that one cup of water poured into another cup of water gives two cups of water is addition.

Obviously, you mean something other than non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given to us by perception when you use the term "logic." The term "logic" does not mean "whatever you can do in your head that doesn't contradict whatever else you can do in your head." In reality, keeping your ideas tied to reality is a virtue -- it's called rationality. Keeping your ideas related to one another based on definitions not tied to observables is a vice -- it's called rationalism. A lot of what goes on in mathematics are basically concepts of method -- i.e. what your mind does with the facts once you grasp them. Abstracting from the facts by focusing on what your mind does gives one the method. However, this does not mean that once one has the method that one can then go on doing method without any content. Without the content, there is no method -- i.e. not anything for your mind to operate on or to do anything with. That is, if one were raised in an isolation chamber or a sensory depravation chamber, there wouldn't be anything for the mind to consider -- neither content nor method (which comes from understanding what the mind does with content). You wouldn't even be free to imagine whatever the heck you wanted to imagine, since imagination is simply re-arranging the content of consciousness. There wouldn't be any content of consciousness without perception. In many ways, getting a modern degree in mathematics, physics, or philosophy is like raising somebody in an isolation chamber past a certain age -- an isolation from reality, as one learns to relate previous content to previous content until one no longer knows where it all came from. For example, calculus did come from observation -- the observation that long strings of re-iterative addition or re-iterative subtraction of simple equations led to definitive results that could be summarized by a more simple method that was at least a very close approximation of such re-iterative simple mathematics. And one way that computers do calculus is that they are very good at doing re-iterative operations; so, in a sense, they are doing what Newton had to do before coming up with calculus. Of course, computers can be programmed to do more complicated operations, so some of them might be doing the actual calculus instead of the re-iteratives. Of course, however, computers aren't actually doing mathematics. They are programmed to do certain processes on data stored as charged areas in their memory (1's and 0's), which is not the same thing as a human being grasping that 1+1=2.

In Objectivism, logic is non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given to us by perception and observation. So, there is no great mystery as to why logical statements work; and mathematical equations are logical statements parsed down to symbols that represent concepts and mental operations (measurement equivalency) with regard to that which they are referring to -- i.e. identified facts of reality based on observations. All such equations are based on the idea that 1=1, that a measurement holds true (in a context) for all time and everywhere, so that, for example, one Newton here on earth is equal to one Newton on the moon or one Newton on the other side of the galaxy and beyond. 1N=1N. That is why we can develop mathematical equations that can get our equipment from here to beyond the solar system in a very controlled manner, even though we must use gravitational sling shot effects to get us there (using equations that work). I would recommend reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand for further elaborations of the connectedness of concepts to reality. As to the question of why things are what they are, it is because they exist. To exist is to be something. Identity is not something that is super-added onto the fact that it exists. To be is to have identity; and to have identity means that it can do certain actions and not others, including changes that are possible to it -- i.e. ice melting, wood burning, stars glowing, etc. The axioms of existence and identity (and the corollary causality) come from observation; the observation of reality, the nature of which we directly experience via perception and observation. When one conceptualizes these observations, we get not only the axioms, but also those wonderful equations that can be so predictive, because they are based on observations and the consistency of existence. In other words, good scientists do not make up equations out of thin air, but rather base them on observations, as Newton did, by conceptualizing a relationship between things observed -- i.e. things falling and the moon orbiting. And, like concepts, the equations hold true for the observed range that led to the development of the equations; they are, in fact, a conceptualization of that range (which is why they don't hold outside of that range -- i.e. near the speed of light nor in super strong gravity). To get equations that hold true for a wider range, one has to integrate other observations. If someone wants to call this "foundationalism," I suppose that is Ok, so long as one understands that perceptual observation of reality is the foundation of all human logical thought.

Black Diamond, you don't have the full context. I wasn't imposing anything on anybody, and I wasn't violating anyone's property rights. All I was doing was writing against the Kelleyites and the Brandenites when such topics came upon the board or if those topics came up at the social meetings. There was an open invitation to have philosophic discussions, both on the board and on the locale -- it was, in fact, a selling point of attending those meetings. So, I wasn't doing anything against his will on his property (the meetings occurred on his property). I simply made my position clear, as I am doing here on this board. If someone says, "Come here and speak your mind, you will find like-minded individuals here," then I don't expect that they will whine like two year olds if someone disagrees with them. I mean, he could have said some things were forbidden topics, because he wanted to draw those people in, but I had been writing and speaking that way for over a year and he never said anything about it. I am proud of how I conducted myself there, and I'm proud of how I am conducting myself here. There aren't many people who, after being accused erroneously of being intellectually dishonest, dishonest, unjust, etc. etc., would still try to get their point across, because he knows he is right. By the way, I am no longer trying to convince Sophia. After giving her detailed examples after detailed examples, I have to conclude that I am wasting my time with her. And that is about a civil as I can possibly be with her. Ideas can be morally evaluated, by simply relating the meaning of them to oneself and one's standards and one's purpose. Those ideas that are against a rational man's life on earth and in reality are immoral -- period.

I agree, which is why I didn't start this thread as, "Is NTOS an Objectivist organization?" You wouldn't have the context unless you were involved, for the most part, because the organizer hasn't written even a position paper on some of the issues. He has taken a stance by implication of kicking me out in the context of me wanting to keep out Kelleyites and Brandenites -- he chose them over me -- but he hasn't explicitly stated that he is for David Kelley or Nathaniel Branden qua "Objectivists." Besides, the thread on NTOS was closed. However, one can still discuss the principles involved, which is what I have been doing. And I've already stated that my original questions that started this thread may not have been formulated as well as I could do it now, after the debate is well under way. Since Fact and Value was explicitly written against David Kelley's position, and since Dr. Peikoff has explained why David Kelley's position with regard to not being able to morally evaluate people based on their ideas or not being able to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a repudiation of Objectivism, I think David Kelley is a better example than Nathaniel Branden. Because David Kelley's stance repudiates Objectivism, and because Objectivism does take a stance that ideas have to be morally evaluated, once one understands that one has to say that David Kelley's ideas are immoral in the abstract, regardless of whether or not one thinks that Kelley himself is immoral -- i.e. morally evaluating people based on their ideas is a crucial aspect of Objectivism. To not do that flies in the face of the reality of the power of ideas; the power of ideas to convince people who accept them to do what the ideas advocate. What David Kelley is advocating is that we refrain from taking intellectual methodology into account when morally evaluating someone -- i.e. we shouldn't take into account if they are rational or not. Rationality as the primary virtue is the cornerstone of the Objectivist ethics. To repudiate that means that one also repudiates the nature of man and that he survives by the use of his mind, so long as he is rational. The intellectual methodology is evident in what someone advocates and the way they advocate it, which Kelley denies. His ideas are immoral because he advocates that we should not morally judge people based on their ideas; and by at least implication, that some philosophies -- i.e. Kantianism -- cannot be considered to be immoral because of their effects of rendering the mind not being connected to reality in any manner whatsoever, once accepted. Now, that is quite a lot to take in, especially if one is new to Objectivism and to philosophy in general. So I certainly would not say that someone just coming across Objectivism is immoral if they do not understand this issue. Nonetheless, the idea in the abstract that one ought not to take someone's ideas into account when morally evaluating them is immoral. The question then becomes: "How much studying of Objectivism will lead one to realize that taking someone ideas into account ought to be part of their moral evaluation of that person?" I think probably only a few years of series study, if not sooner. It's just not that difficult to grasp, especially in the context of Ayn Rand's novels. Now, the question of whether or not one can morally evaluate ideas in the abstract is a more difficult question to consider. That is, can one say that Kantianism is immoral qua philosophy, as a set of ideas apart from Kant's motivation? I certainly think the answer is that yes you can, and that you ought to do that -- if you take ideas seriously. However, it is obvious from this thread and this discussion that some people are resistive to doing that.

So, you are saying that I am intellectually dishonest because I disagree with your position. I still disagree with it, in the sense that I have been writing about throughout this thread; that is that one must and ought to morally evaluate ideas in the abstract and the people who advocate them taking their context into account. Yes, I was kicked out of NTOS for morally evaluating ideas in the abstract. I think a lot of people do not understand what that means, and therefore take personal umbrage at me saying they are advocating an immoral idea. For the record, my removal from NTOS centered around the issue of whether or not Nathaniel Branden is an Objectivist philosopher. He is not. And the idea that he is an Objectivist philosopher is an immoral idea. Likewise with David Kelley. The person I was arguing against didn't understand that initially, but he changed his mind. The owner operator of NTOS refuses to take a stance one way or the other regarding that issue. I was taking a stance, and for that I was kicked out of NTOS. Also, because he has the same misunderstanding of the issues I have been raising in this thread that Sophia and KendallJ have. So, this thread and the whole debate are not just something that I arbitrarily attached to my removal from NTOS. The issues I have been raising are central to an understanding of Objectivism. And I think that if one is going to run an Objectivist organization -- whether it be a board or a social function -- then one ought to have an intellectual understanding of Objectivism; and be able to back up that understanding. If you don't then you will be condemning the best advocates of Objectivism as being too harsh and "speaking down to people." It may or may not have come from David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden, but it is the same thing.

My primary purpose when I am writing in a forum is to make my position clear, which often does require writing something longer than a mere reply to a particular post. I cannot always figure out where someone is coming from in one or two counter posts; so I further explain my position. For example, I'm not sure your post 59 is clear, since, given the context of the discussion, we have a disagreement on when Sophia or you would say that an idea is immoral. It seems you would only say it is immoral if a person held it in his mind in direct contradiction to their understanding of the issue. I think that is true when it comes to the moral evaluation of the person's character; however I think it is possible that one can advocate, say communism, as Andrei did, and that one could say that he was advocating an immoral idea -- i.e. communism in theory and in practice is immoral -- but still realize he could be advocating it on mistaken grounds. In that kind of case, I would say the idea is immoral or evil, but that Andrei doesn't understand the consequences of what he is advocating, so he is not immoral. I think a lot of the talking past one another that we have going on is because you do not understand my position on ideas, and that one can and must morally evaluate them with regard to what they mean in theory and in practice; regardless of who is advocating them and regardless of whether or not the person advocating them is moral. Any idea considered in the abstract which contradicts reality is a morally bad idea. For it to be considered to be evil, it would have to contradict reality on a very wide scale -- i.e Kantianism as a philosophy. For example, Plato's philosophy considered in the abstract with regard to what they actually mean and will actually bring to fruition if followed are very bad ideas, because they will and did bring the Dark Ages; hence they are immoral ideas. Whether or not Plato himself was immoral is a different question. One can definitely say that he was rationalistic -- i.e. he had floating abstractions. But was it his aim to destroy civilization as he knew it? I'm saying that one can and ought to morally evaluate an idea abstracted away from the advocator. I agree that Toohey was evil in that he wanted to destroy any sense of independence in everybody, that was his aim. But had he not been successful with Catherine and Peter, and had his ideas lay dormant for centuries and then re-discovered, any rational man could morally evaluate his ideas without knowing anything at all about him in particular. A rational man would be able to see that the ideas contained in his writings would necessarily lead to the destruction of independence for anyone who followed them; hence his ideas were very immoral; and even evil, since independence is a virtue and self-esteem is a primary value.

First of all, I don't think you ought to try to speak for Sophia; since she is quite capable of doing that herself. Second of all, I will elaborate on what I mean by considering an idea in the abstract, as a theory. I might be quite possible for someone, say Andrea, to hold in their mind the idea that communism means: "To overthrow the Tzar and return power to the people!" And in his context of being involved in the communist revolution, he might even have been justified in coming to this conclusion and supporting it. By abstracting away from his context and considering the idea of communism as a philosophy, one can see that Andrea did not grasp the actual meaning of communism. In fact, the only reasonable way one could ever conclude that someone made a mistake is if you know what something actually means, but that someone could have come to a reasonable misunderstanding of that idea in his context. That is, the way most, if not all, such communist revolutions occur is by blurring the meaning of the philosophy that is inherent in the concept of communism itself. Instead of being told,"You will not be permitted to rise according to your abilities" they are told, "You will throw your masters off your back." However, in both actual theory and actual practice, communism can only mean the destruction of individual rights. Considered in the abstract in that manner, it can only be morally evaluated as being evil. Similarly for environmentalism. The way environmentalism is cast is that man will get along peaceably with the animals, and we will all live in a cute and cuddly world, if only we showed more respect for the natural and animals and lived like they do. In actual theory and actual practice, it means that no man will be permitted to re-shape the natural to his own selfish survival; which is evil because man survives by the use of his mind to re-shape the natural to suit his life-sustaining ends. So, qua theory, environmentalism is evil; because it is against man's nature qua man. Andrea's misunderstanding of the actual nature of communism and a modern teenager's misunderstanding of the actual nature of environmentalism, does not change the actual nature of these anti-man theories. That someone may misunderstand an evil philosophy does not make that philosophy any less evil. And I said "evil" and not just "incorrect", because I do understand the actual nature of these anti-man philosophies. In many cases, both the communists and the environmentalists come right out and say what they mean explicitly; and yet many people fall for the "return the people to power" or "let's live in a cute and cuddly world" very thin veneer. But if the rational would come right out and call these ideas evil in the abstract, there would be less unwary victims. For example, had someone come out and told Catherine Halsey: "The ideas that your uncle are advocating are evil!" She might have been in a position to have checked her premises before she fell for them.

Actually, by "in the abstract" I meant the meaning of the idea abstracted away from "the context of a person holding, advocating and carrying out the idea." In other words, communism, in the abstract as a theory must lead to the destruction of individual rights. Once one recognizes this, then one has to morally condemn it as being unfit for a rational man qua idea; regardless of who practices it and regardless of what they may misunderstand about it. It's like the difference between philosophic value and economic or social value. The philosophic evaluation of communism qua theory is that it is evil. In reply to your question raised in post 59 (your link didn't work, by the way): My answer to b: But Sophia has not been advocating the moral condemnation of people who advocate anti-man, anti-reality ideas. In my previous post regarding someone advocating communism, she didn't say she would condemn them, but rather said that many of them are mistaken. I'm glad Sophia mentioned Catherine Halsey, because Catherine was destroyed by ideas; the ideas of her uncle, Elsworth Toohey. Now, she didn't have to accept them, but maybe she didn't know how to defend herself from them. The way to defend oneself from ideas that are so destructive is to morally condemn them as evil, in the abstract, qua theory, because if followed they can only bring the destruction of man, such as what happened to Catherine. Once she accepted them and advocated them, then she was like an intellectual Typhoid Mary, spreading destruction to whoever would listen to her. Her own example of what those ideas did to her should have served as fair warning to her (and to any rational man), but she no longer had the capacity to judge ideas in the abstract; because of the ideas that she accepted.

I think a crucial point is being missed here, and that is that if one is rational, then one must morally evaluate ideas in the abstract. By "in the abstract" I mean here that one must deal with the idea for what it is -- a statement about reality and the consequences that would follow logically from the idea in the abstract; in other words, by man's life as the standard. If one holds that abstraction, man's life as the standard, as a real standard (or a reality based standard), then one also has the capacity to judge in the abstract those ideas that are in compliance with that standard or are counter to that standard. Those ideas that are in compliance with man's life as the standard (will be beneficial if followed in the abstract and in the particular), are good ideas; meaning are worthy of moral praise qua idea. Those ideas that are counter to man's life as the standard (will be harmful if followed in the abstract or in the particular), are bad ideas; meaning are worthy of moral condemnation qua idea. The inability or unwillingness to judge ideas in the abstract is a form of concrete-boundness, and leads to a type of moral skepticism along the lines of: "Well, maybe he didn't really mean it;" "Maybe he was only mistaken;" "We shouldn't take ideas seriously, after all, they are only abstractions;" etc. Which is one of the aspects of Fact and Value that Dr. Peikoff is arguing against as not being a part of Objectivism. In other words, if someone came onto this board and advocated communism, one's first reaction should not be: "Let's not morally evaluate the idea of communism as being evil; because, like a two year old, he might not know what he is talking about and he may not really mean it." Rather one should openly proclaim that the idea of communism is evil, and that if he continues to advocate it, then he will be removed from the board, since he is promoting evil ideas. If you take ideas seriously, this is the only moral stance one can take to someone advocating an idea that threatens the removal of individual rights on all levels. If he is mistaken, then he can show that he is mistaken and promote more rational ideas. And it doesn't matter that Andrea may have fallen for communism on mistaken grounds. A moral, rational man would have to fight him in terms of ideology and action. In other words, had we gone to war with the Soviet Union early on and came across Andrea, he would either have to be captured or killed, with full moral rectitude, because he is the enemy. There may well be cases where someone is promoting evil ideas as a sort of intellectual Typhoid Mary -- i.e. he doesn't know the full evil of what he is promoting -- but just as people had the right to protect themselves from the carrier of a deadly disease; so those of us who do understand the complete logical evil entailed in communism (or any other anti-reason philosophy) have the right to condemn the idea as evil and that he cannot promote evil in our presence. Moral skepticism with regard to ideas considered in the abstract is like such a disease, because once some people succumb to it, no amount of facts or arguing seem to be able to persuade them otherwise.

I agree that when it comes to judging a person morally based on his ideas, that one must take into account their level of knowledge, their context, how they arrived at it, whether they were rational but merely mistaken, etc., etc. But I never meant the opposite of that when I said that one has to judge ideas morally by man's life as the standard. When I asked you those questions earlier, Sophia, I was not asking you to judge the person, but rather asking: Do you recognize that to following their advise (i.e to sacrifice everything you own, or to go by emotions rather than reason) would injure your integrity? If you know that rationality is the highest virtue, then you must condemn the suggestion to follow irrationality. If you know that honesty (the recognition that the unreal is unreal) is a virtue, then the advise to lie, in most cases, means the exact opposite; and a rational person ought to recoil from that suggestion as if he were asked to jump into a raging volcano. If someone were to ask you to go by everyone elses' standards, instead of your own rational standards, then this would be a breach of your rational independence; and a rational man would condemn the suggestion as if his very life depended on it, because it does. One can do the same thing for all of the virtues. And it doesn't matter who is asking you to breach your rationality, and it doesn't matter about his virtue or lack thereof; to follow the advise to breach your rationality must be judged as being immoral and evil by a rational standard. This is what I mean by judging an idea morally; meaning to judge the value of the idea in relation to man's life as the standard. If your five year old son told me that the best way I could preserve my spirit was to believe in God, I would condemn the idea as immoral and evil, because it would mean that the best way I could preserve my spirit is to turn away from reality as it really is. I would not condemn you son, because he doesn't know any better, and at that age, doesn't know what the invalid concept "God" is demanding of someone. Nonetheless, as a rational man I have to reject it as being immoral to believe in God; whether it came from your son, or the Pope, or a philosopher -- selfishly, because of what it would do to me to follow that advise. And don't tell me no one has ever advised you to not be rational or to not have integrity or to not go by your own best judgement. That kind of advise is heard every day in every medium known to man! To say that an idea is evil is to say that it is not morally healthy for a rational man to go along with it; so one morally evaluates it as being an evil idea -- who says it is irrelevant.

True, but one can also have evidence of someone else's mental process if one has enough information. This information is contained in the presentation of an idea. One can usually tell if someone just doesn't get it, is being rationalistic, or being irrational, or being evasive. The manner in which a mind operates is evident in the ideas that it presents to the world and the way these are presented. There is a whole other level of this debate, and that is whether or not one can morally praise or morally condemn an idea; and not just say that it is true or false. Let me put it this way: A person can think through the facts and formulate the concept of communism in a completely rational manner; this is virtuous. But the idea of following communism as an ideal is an evil idea; because it is against rationality, individualism, and man's life on earth qua philosophy. If someone were to tell you: "Sophia, you ought to throw away everything you have earned, since you have earned it; because that is virtuous." Your proper reaction, if you hold man's life as the standard, should be: "That's an evil idea!" If I now told you, "Sophia, don't use your mind to resolve this issue; just go by your emotions, because they are superior to reason." Your proper reaction should be: "That's an evil idea!" This would be the proper reaction to someone saying that you ought to operate according to principles that are counter to man's life on earth. Some ideas have to be judged according to what it would do to a rational man, if he were to follow it. If the idea commands him to be anti-virtuous (irrational), and he follows it, then he would not be virtuous; which is why he condemns the idea as being evil.

Someone sent me a private note saying that the above could be interpreted as me calling my opponents complete idiots. I did not say that. I'm reminded that Ayn Rand once said that one can make something fool proof, but one could not make it damned fool proof. I don't think Plato ever considered any of the Forms to be conscious, except by implication, as in the Form Knowledge or the Form Consciousness. It took the Dark Ages to come up with the idea of angels -- a kind of mixture of the Pagan view that the Pagan gods had messengers but with a Platonic twist. I don't think anybody here, including my opponents hold that view about ideas being conscious in and of themselves. But if they do, well they have my views on that.

I'm not actually calling anyone a Kelleyite, strictly speaking. I'm saying I think they either got the idea from Kelley or possibly came up with it on their own. People can pick up bad ideas and bad methodologies. All I'm suggesting at this point is that this may have been what happened.

In answer to KendalJ, regarding me saying that Sophia or anyone else arguing against morally evaluating an idea in the sense of saying that the idea is immoral having gotten this from David Kelley: I simply don't know of anyone else who advocated that one cannot judge an idea as being immoral, in the sense of saying that an idea doesn't have conscious choice and therefore can neither be moral or immoral, aside from David Kelley; and I have a BA degree in philosophy and have studied them all. I just don't remember ever coming across that sort of an argument; aside from Truth and Toleration. I'm not trying to say that you agree with everything in that track, such as not morally judging a person because he might only be mistaken (which requires evidence); because you do seem to not want to do that, if you have clear evidence that the person's mind is operating in such a way as to show that they are not being rational. So, at least up to this point, I am not saying that they are Moral Tolerationists. But nobody in this forum has been advocating that ideas have volition and therefore have to be held morally responsible for what they decide to do; and that this is what they mean by morally evaluating an idea. Nobody has said that; least of all me. In my opinion, a person would have to be a complete idiot to say that an idea, as a conscious Platonic Form-Space being, is morally responsible for its decisions.* However, it is sometimes helpful for people in a discussion to state what they think somebody means so that the solution to the misunderstanding can be reached. I would have had no idea that this is what was being misunderstood about my position if KendalJ hadn't come right out and said it. [*Actually, they wouldn't have to be complete idiots; they might just be die-hard rationalists. After all, there is a sense in which the pseudo-concept "angel" means "a conscious Platonic Form-Space being." But they are so pure in God's Grace that they could never even imagine doing anything immoral.]

While ideas only exist in someone's mind, it had to be created somehow (by some method) and it has to refer to something (it means something). These are the two aspects of the concept that Dr. Peikoff is referring to when he says that an idea can be morally evaluated. One has to look at the mental process (what I am calling morally evaluating the person) and one has to look at the referent (what I call morally evaluating the idea). Looking at the process will tell you if the person forming the idea was rational (moral) or irrational (immoral); looking at the referent will tell you what would be expected of men if they were to follow it (i.e. they would be expected to massively violate individual rights across the board if they followed communism, which is evil). Because certain ideas, when accepted, would lead to violations of the nature of existence (i.e. God), or individual rights (i.e communism, fascism, etc.), then one has to judge those referentials in the abstract as being immoral or evil -- i.e irrationality and the violation of individual rights is immoral; thus the idea is immoral, because of what the referential man would be doing (being irrational) if he followed it. Take the idea that Black Diamond mentioned of someone offering the suggestion that the company use bootleg software. This is an evil idea because it means that he and the company would have to violate individual rights in order to follow it. Hence the idea of using bootleg software is an immoral idea, because of what following it would require if put into practice. And someone making that suggestion would at least have to be held in suspicion of having a bad character, because he is advocating violating individual rights. If he just made a mistake, then he would have to show how he was able to remain rational, and yet still come up with the idea of using bootleg software. And a rationalization, such as "It would be cheaper," does not count as being rational (moral). If one brings one's ideas down to earth instead of floating, then one can certainly judge whether following an idea violates rationality or not; thus one can morally evaluate an idea in both senses: the process that led to it and the consequences of following it.

It would all depend on the mental process they went through to arrive at the conclusion to support an idea that was evil. For me to consider them to be mistaken instead of being evasive or evil, there would have to be some reasonable way they could have made that mistake in their context. I've been thinking more about Andrea, and I can think of a few reasonable things that could have happened that would have led him to think that supporting communism was the best choice in his context. For example, let's say that he knew, without a doubt, that under the Tzar many injustices were occurring. He is led to believe, by his teachers or mentors, that the Tzarist regime is corrupt because power is concentrated into the hands of the few -- the Tzar and his cronies. He comes to accept the idea that the way to insure justice is to put power back into the hands of the people (a standard appeal that communists make). He is led to believe that the only way to do this is to institute communism, which, in theory means all of the people are in charge. He doesn't know about individual rights and that this is the real solution, so it doesn't even enter his radar screen. He helps to overthrow the Tzar, and helps to institute a government that is of all the people. Because those with money were those with political power under the Tzar -- which can easily (in that context) confuse economic power with political power -- he believes that having more money than one's neighbors is a sure case of power being concentrated into the hands of the few, so having money can be made against the law; etc. , etc. Now, in that kind of detail, I can see where someone young and idealistic might conclude that communism is the best system; especially if he doesn't know about the alternatives. Unfortunately, Miss Rand did not go into those kinds of details regarding Andrea's choice to become a communist, so this is only a hypothetical position. I don't know...she did give good grounds for other characters that she created for making mistakes, but not for Andrea. Maybe she considered it to be obvious enough in the historic context that she thought she didn't need to do that for Andrea. But I would contend that she didn't do that, which I think is one reason some Objectivist can be so contentious against Andrea being morally innocent -- i.e. having thought it through the best he could in his context of knowledge and in the context of the choices available to him -- because he isn't shown doing that.

Thank you KendalJ, you just put your finger on the problem. First of all, I would never consider someone to be immoral if I can see that they are trying to think through an issue. It's obvious that Sophia is thinking through the issue. I think she is wrong in her stance, and I've already said umpteen times that it is possible to morally condemn an idea (i.e. Tolerationism, Truth and Toleration, "Kelleyism") without morally condemning the person advocating it. However, I think you have pin-pointed the exact nature of the error people are making when they say that an idea cannot be morally evaluated. A few postings ago, Sophia said that one could not morally evaluate an abstract person doing an abstract action, and yet she is doing just that when she claims that Andrea was morally innocent. Andrea is an abstraction, he's not a real person doing real things. She then later said that communism is immoral. Why, how can you said that about a political system? Isn't the term "communism" an abstraction? Besides, you are saying that a political system is immoral when it is not making any decisions between two alternatives, and being either evasive or rational about that choice; political systems don't do that, only people can do that. The fact that you can either morally absolve or morally condemn Andrea shows that you can morally evaluate an idea. And the fact that you said that communism is immoral shows that you can morally condemn the man-made. I think the problem is that some of you do think that I'm saying that when an idea can be morally evaluated I'm saying that I'm holding the idea morally responsible for making an irrational decisions -- i.e. as if it is some sort of conscious being in Form-Space, which is not what I am saying at all. An idea subsumes all of the particulars under it. So, when one says "communism" it means: people volitionally violating individual rights; people considering the masses as the unit of society; people urging for the willful destruction of innocent Leo's and Kira's; people fully and consciously taking away peoples lives because they won't follow their orders from The State; people gleefully destroying anybody willing and able to stand out above the ignorant masses; etc., etc. It's not just a floating abstraction. The term "Communism" has all of those people doing all of those things. And those actions and their motivations are grossly irrational and therefore evil. That is what it means to say that communism is immoral and evil. Another way of phrasing this is to say that the idea of communism is evil. It means the same thing and has the same referents. So, if I say that democracy is an immoral idea, I am not referring to the word "democracy" getting up and deciding to do anything. And it is exactly this type of pseudo-reasoning that David Kelley talks about in his writings, Truth and Toleration. He brings up the same issue in the same way. Check your premises.

I've been addressing your arguments, and we keep talking past one another. It is quite possible to morally condemn an idea that someone is advocating without morally condemning the person advocating it. It is also possible to morally praise an idea that someone is advocating without morally praising the person advocating it. That's why there are two sides to a moral appraisal of an idea and its advocate. Andrea, since you mentioned him, was not only advocating communism, which you have already asserted is an inherently dishonest idea, but he was practicing it -- he was murdering hundreds if not thousands of people just because they disagreed with communism and wouldn't follow the party line. Now, one can say that up to a point, he fell for communism as an ideal when he was young, but he still retains some moral culpability for accepting an inherently dishonest idea. And I don't think that all those murders on his hands and on his soul can be excused on the grounds that he was young and idealistic. And when he fully realized what communism meant, and that he was continuously putting Kira in jeopardy by his ideaology and by his actions, it destroyed him, which is justice. A person is morally responsible for the ideas he advocates. If he is young and doesn't know any better, then he shouldn't be advocating ideas that he doesn't understand -- and he most certainly shouldn't be acting on them. Take your example of a young child and let's say he watched that science program "The Sun" and then went around advocating that we all ought to live like the Hopi Indians. Why any rational parent or any rational teacher would be horrified that he was uttering such things. No, he doesn't know any better, but he is still advocating an evil idea. And he should be corrected for this. Note that I did not say that he was evil, but he is responsible for advocating that idea. Likewise, Hank Rearden, had he done so, would have had to bear the responsibility of advocating the idea that sex was evil; even if he did arrive at that conclusion mistakenly. People have to beheld responsible for their conclusions, especially if they advocate them openly. The first step is to tell them they are advocating an evil idea by man's life as the standard by condemning the idea -- tell them that idea is evil, and explain it to them. If they are only mistaken, then they will change their minds in short order. If they are willfully evasive, they won't; and then one can condemn them for not being rational. So, no, to answer your allegation, I don't go around condemning people for advocating irrational ideas -- without taking the context into account. But the idea still has to be smashed as being anti-man and anti-life. It is evil and it must be spoken out against by morally condemning it. You are accusing me of being unjust, but I am not that way. And I am not sundering fact from value, I'm saying that an idea is a fact, and that it must be evaluated. As a man-made fact it is open to moral appraisal.

I think I need to nip something in the bud here. Having a psychological problem (a deeply held premise that might be very difficult to uproot) is not an excuse for advocating ideas that are contrary to man's life as the standard. For example, had Hank Rearden gone around advocating that sex was evil, like some preachers do, then he would have to be considered immoral by man's life as the standard. What I was trying to get at is that sex was not good for him. Sex was not experienced as a very joyful union of mind and body to him. This would be similar to, say, someone wanting to learn how to ski because she has heard about how wonderful and fun it is. But every time she gets up on a set of skis, she has a wreck and breaks an arm or a leg. Skiing is not wonderful and fun to her. And it would take considerable encouragement for her to get back up onto skis and keep trying. Now, if she went around saying that skiing was evil and went around protesting ski resorts as harbingers of evil people, then she would be turning her personal disasters into a philosophy against enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment; which would be evil. Hank Rearden didn't do that. For him it was a personal problem that he didn't turn into an anti-life philosophy. He did say some horrible things to Dagny the morning after, but she just thought it was silly and wanted more! In short, man's life is the standard even if one does have psychological problems.

Excellent. On what grounds could you possibly say that he was being immoral unless you determine what the consequences of that idea will be? And can't those consequences be judged? And aren't you morally judging him before the fact? I mean, he hasn't committed mass murder, he is only advocating it. And besides, you are saying that he is "an adult, sane, individual" and yet you are calling him immoral. By what evidence? Wouldn't the evidence be gathered by what he advocated -- i.e. based on the ideas that he advocates? You certainly seem to be implying that certain ideas are immoral, regardless of who advocates them; so long as they are sane adults.

I think her whole approach of not wanting to pass moral judgement on an idea or a set of ideas comes from Truth and Toleration -- unless she came up with the same approach regarding ideas entirely on her own. There are also these indicators: Now, it is quite possible that ~Sophia~ read Truth and Toleration a while back and hasn't rooted out all of the mistaken and even evil assertions made in that pamphlet or book; but checking those premises is something she definitely ought to do. Besides, her approach, regardless of where she got it from, can only lead to moral skepticism with regard to ideas. For example, if someone came across an idea that advocated mass murder, one would not be able to condemn that idea until one did research to find out if the person advocating mass murder who wrote that track was being out of focus, mistaken, or willfully evil. Take the militant Muslim's statements that America ought to be annihilated. Given the tremendous value of America, that is a hideously evil idea. I don't have to know the "cause" in the sense of finding out if they are out of focus, mistaken, or willfully evil to say that. Learning more about their motivations as to why they would advocate the destruction of America is a related question, and one that has to be done to morally evaluate them. And one cannot excuse them because they hold religion -- i.e. highly mistaken views of the nature of existence -- as their guiding pseudo-principles. The idea that America as we know it today as a secular nation ought to be destroyed because it violates religious edicts is evil.

I may answer ~Sophia~ more thoroughly later, but I can tell from some of the things that she is saying that she is taking some answers from Fact and Value (Objectivism) and some answers from Truth and Toleration (anti-Objectivism). I'm not going to morally condemn her for this mixture at this point, because I think she (and others who agree with her) are being duped -- and it makes for a big mess that I am under no moral obligation to untangle. From Fact and Value: "Justice is an aspect of the principle that cognition demands evaluation; it is that principle applied to human choices and their products. Since man is volitional, evaluation of the man-made is of a special kind: it is moral evaluation." [emphasis mine] And further: "Just as every "is" implies an "ought," so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates. The evaluation, to repeat, comes from the answer to two related questions: what kind of volitional cause led people to this idea? and, to what kind of consequences will this idea lead in practice?" [emphasis mine] In other words, one could not conclude, based on my example of "The Sun," that living the way the Hopi Indians lived is the right way to live, is not an evil idea because the producers of that show may not have known any better. That idea, as a man-made product, is evil; because it can only bring destruction to civilization if put into practice.

HanK Rearden's views on sex were developed inductively, and based on the lack of appropriate responsiveness woman had to his advances. He was very disappointed in the woman that he had sex with, because they did not understand it as a supreme celebration of life -- especially his life and her life. But he couldn't bring himself to condemn those woman (for not being man worshipping enough), so he began to conclude that his desire for sex must be inappropriate -- i.e. wrong. This was a very big mistaken view on his part, and it became so ingrained psychologically (in his subconscious) that he no longer consciously held the view that sex was good, at least theoretically. To him, it was very frustrating having sex with those woman, so he damned his desire for sex; which is why he stuck with Lillian -- that cold dead fish in bed. When Rearden came across Dagny's open desire for him, he had to check those premises, but because he had let his desire for sex become damned, he couldn't do it over night. In effect, it had become a psychological problem; and psychological problems are not rooted out by one or two incidences that are contrary to the deeply held premises arrived at inductively-- i.e. by very bad experiences. That Rearden continued to see Dagny and continued to come to enjoy having sex with her is proof of his virtue. He was actively checking his premises and overcoming his problems with sex by continuing to inductively validating that sex -- with the right woman -- is good; that it didn't have to bring nothing but frustration and disappointment. I think this is similar to someone having a string of very bad dating experiences when they are young, and then coming to the conclusion that it just isn't worth it. And I can certainly tell you that some woman are more trouble than they are worth. So, yes, sex is good; but one has to find that right type of partner to validate that. Otherwise, it's just a theory. Regarding Dagny and her decision to leave the valley; no, she wasn't being evasive. One can say that she came to agree with Objectivism (especially after Galt's speech), but she disagreed on an application of it. She didn't think that it was necessary to let the world collapse because she thought that man was basically rational and that they would see things the right way. There was a sense in which she was too innocent or too benevolent. She didn't believe in the existence of or the motivation of evil men. In fact, she thought the battle was won with Galt's speech. I mean, to her, who could possibly not agree with it? She couldn't imagine that some people would hate Galt enough for that speech to want to kill him. And she didn't realize that by continuing to run Taggart Transcontinental that she was supporting her own destroyers. She had to see those evil men torturing and threatening to kill John Galt for the existence of evil to become real to her. And it was only after understanding this that she decided that the strikers were right in their stance to go on strike.