Ifat Glassman

[Also available here on my blog] "Community service" and help in good will Yesterday, September 11th, Obama made a speech to the nation claiming the significance and meaning of the day is "community service". Take a moment to ponder: what exactly is the meaning of "community service", and is it really the reason so many American citizens helped others during the event 8 years ago? To "serve" means "work for or be a servant to", "do duty", "devote (part of) one's life or efforts to" another person. Is this what was the help about? Were those who helped saw themselves as servants of the ones under the ruins? Did they see it as their duty to selflessly serve the men in need? I don't think so. Those people were proud, not humble. They saw themselves as soldiers, not as servants. "Community service" and what was going on there that day and in the days that followed were complete opposites. Those people who helped others did not do so because they thought their duty is to sacrifice their lives so that others may live. I believe they did not do it out of moral duty, but out of a spiritual, selfish reason - they valued the lives of the kind of people under the ruins, who shared their values and the American love of freedom. They were angry at the terrorist attack which stood directly against what America is stands for, and by helping others they were fighting for and reafirming their own spiritual values. This was not service to the state or the "community". It was devotion to their own ideals and values. This is a very important distinction to understand: If someone is doing something for someone else, it could have two opposite meanings. The "Stalin" meaning of "you are not important, live for the greater good", and the American generosity. If both are "doing something for someone else", what is the distinction between the two? It is this distinction that Obama wants people to lose. He wants to take the second meaning of genuine generosity and replace it with the "Stalin" meaning of "live for others". He wants to scare people that if they don't agree to his idea of "community service" that they are not generous, when in fact generosity and "community service" are complete opposite. Generosity is an extention of one's spiritual values toward another human being who shares them. It is those spiritual values that allow a man to truly value human life, and thus see them as worthy to perserve. The man whose sole value is to sacrifice his life for the "community" is incapable of valuing human life. When I help someone, I do so because their own well being is a selfish value to me. I do so because I see in them the spiritual values I respect and have in me: integrity, courage, determination, honesty. Does Stalin ever helped anyone? He talked a lot about "service of the greater good", "service to other men", "service to the state" - Did he ever help another soul? His kind is a void. He has no spiritual values. Human life means nothing to him. This, is the meaning of true selflessness, of "community service", of living for someone else. Yes, the help is extended to someone else, but the reason is not selfless service, but pride, justice and profoud individuality. Keep in mind this important distinction: Selfless service or selfish generosity? The two could not be further apart. _______________________________________ An after-word: If you think that understanding this distinction is important, as I do, spread it around to other people. Especially non-Objectivists. Yes, it's my blog and it's a nice bonus to get more visitors, but hey I'm not making money anyway from it, so you can sleep with a clear conscience.

The discredit Ayn Rand because her ideas are clear. Ideas presented clearly belong in childish dreams, not in serious academia. They have an anti-mind philosophy.

The difference is, Christianity gives an epistemological basis to integrate with its ethics (ethics come from the bible which comes from the lord, and god created the universe - explains metaphysics). Its ethics can actually be used as a practical guide in everyday life. Barak Obama's altruism is a nice ideal to hang above one's fireplace, but is not an integrated system of thought. I think this is why religion can stand, but socialism (/altruism) as an isolated idea will not.

Just to correct one small detail: the world out there is not objective or subjective, etc', but just is. Objective is referring to the method of identification.

Apologies for the late reply. That's an interesting way to think of common sense; an implicit understanding that thinking needs to have no contradictions. I still think that there were men before Aristotle who used this method. Perhaps only a few individuals and not a cultural trend, but there had to have been. From what I remember from a lecture Peikoff gave he said that by the time Aristotle discovered logic there were already some developed sciences like Geometry and Medicine. Use of logic is the only way to survive and develop. So many people (even a culture as a whole) may not be characterized by use of logic the way modern society does, it is probably the case that cavemen were not essentially characterized by implicit use of logic. But they did use implicit logic to some degree, and some individuals more than others (otherwise there would not have been progress). So I think in all cultures there was some implicit use of logic, but it is indeed only in modern times that people understand that thinking needs to have no contradictions and logic is grasped as a self-evident necessity for truth. So we may agree after all. A culture can be altruistic, it does not mean every man in it is an altruist, nor that every man is a principled altruist - it is a characteristic of the accepted ideas in that culture and what most people believe. Similarly ancient civilizations were not characterized (as in, this was the ruling method in their daily thinking) by implicit use of logic, yet men did use it to some degree. Yes, a lecture where he explains why only after Aristotle common sense was a cultural trend (if that is the idea he explains). I think I know where it is, maybe in the lecture about induction of logic from "Oism through Induction".

Wow, what a dishonest idiot. I wouldn't bother discussing anything with this guy. You can only succeed with logic with rational honest people. You CANNOT make an irrational person who does not seek the truth or inner-consistency of anything by using logic. It's futile, you should only seek those who respect logic as an absolute (regardless of their opinions). Other than his personal attacks mentioned above by others, notice the hidden assumption in his questions. "we often talk together about the problems in this country" "He has seen the problems of healthcare being treated as a business, and they are myriad" What is the *standard* he uses to determine what is a "problem" or not? THAT, is the hidden assumption. If you let the question pass as legitimate, you are lost; whatever argument you will make won't matter once you accept the assumption as valid by accepting the question. First of all, notice that he does not define whose problem it is. A problem can only belong to an individual men or a group of individual men, for each separately. When he talks about the "problems in this country" he is referring to some imaginary entity called "public good". He is a collectivist - he does not judge good and bad based on what will happen to any individual man, rather what is good for "society". Well, what is society if not individual men and women? (Rhetorical: it's nothing). He is sneaking in his collectivist, undefined standard of "good" and then expect you to answer the question. He says that high prices of health care are a "problem in this country" - well, by what standard is it a problem? Obviously he cannot make the case for every individual men in society - some definitely benefit from the cost. He only looks at the side of the costumer (and even then only a certain group of costumers) - what gives him the right or logical ability to discard the good of some men in favor of others and call it the "public good"? Not logic, I can tell you that. It's something like "I want this to be right, I feel it is right, it is right and anyone who threatens this feeling is an asshole". Don't accept his collectivist standard premise. It is there behind every alleged "problem" he brings up.

Forgot to add: Good Luck.

It's not their job to spread their political agenda in class when they are paid to teach other things. Maybe you can politely point it out, something like: "Not to be rude, professor, but I don't believe the classroom is a place for teachers to spread their political views. People come here to learn, not to listen to your opinion about healthcare". As for arguments - well, you can point out that it is unjust (redistribution of wealth as such is unjust) and that in countries where it has been applied the results are disastrous and cost a lot of human life, so for any of those who pretend like they are FOR human life, and still have the knowledge your professors do, consider the facts from this video: PJTV Undercover: Steven Crowder Investigates CanadaCare...Will ObamaCare Be Any Better? It erases any doubt as to whether or not an educated person can honestly support government healthcare because of "caring for human beings".

Very cool.

Your post completely ignores in content everything that was discussed here so far. I believe if you'd read it you might find the answer to the problem Jake pointed out in your definition.

And another thought: it makes perfect sense that this is how he acts. He knows that his parents value and love him, they are on his side. He knows he can trust them to only look out for his best interest and also their love becomes a very very important value. On the other end, when a parent uses physical violence against his child, the child remembers and resents it, and he (or she) will not trust the parent and may even come to not value the parent's love at all. It becomes a matter of how to avoid physical pain and get away with what the child wants.

Because if they establish that reason is invalid (no more than an instance of faith) then that gives men the "privilege" of regarding everything they wish as true. If they convince others of the invalidity of their thinking process, then others can't challenge their ideas and conclusions either.

That is such a messed up idea, I don't know how anyone can get it wrong. Yet I know Peikoff raised a similar question to Ayn Rand when he was 17 or so, and now he is the wisest, and one of the smartest people I've heard. So anyway, to get to the point. How about this solution? Next time you meet one of the advocates of this idea, smack them on the head with an object, then if they complain, explain that it is fine that they believe that you smacked them, but hey, this is just their belief, right? And you are very offended that this is the kind of thing they believe you would do to them.

That's a terrific achievement. I do think, though, that beating does cause psychological damage. Pride is a very basic state thing for humans. Even very small kids have it, before they even have many concepts developed. Beating up a child, demanding obedience goes against one's pride. It does, and I've seen it, cause problems with self esteem when a child concedes his pride because of fear of physical punishment. It is an ugly process of destroying a human being's pride. I think every parent who does this regularly, and especially for reasons other than the child's safety (such as venting anger or demanding obedience for the sake of obedience) is despicable. I've had neighbors across the street who had the I.Q. of chimpanzees. The couple had 7 boys, and the husband-baboon would beat up his kids often (and even publically). Surprise, surprise, his kids grew up to be a psychological mess. They would feel humiliated, like a second-rate human beings. They wouldn't look people in the eye, they were hateful of everyone who has good things (one of them actually broke into our house occasionally, pick up some stuff and threw them in a nearby field), they delighted in bullying weaker kids. The evidence is the size of a mountain that beating up kids does cause psychological damage. Even in cases when it is done to "restrain" kids (so called "educational purposes" - what does it "educate" them to do? to sit quietly like monkeys?) it has the same effect in lower doses than the freak of a neighbor I brought as an example. I just can't stay calm on this topic, it infuriates me when someone thinks they have a right to sabotage a life so that they can have some "peace of mind" or feel supreme because they have obedience from their child. If what you want is peace of mind don't bring a human being to this world. If you do, do so with the value of your child's life as a top value.

What makes our knowledge objective is not the sense perception - it is the conceptual interpretation of the sense data. A blind man can feel an apple, another man sees the apple, they both conclude that there is an apple, objectively, by using different sense altogether. The key to Objectivity is in using the right method (logic) in arriving at conclusions, not in the raw data - which by itself is meaningless. You cannot say that a newborn which only experiences raw sense data is objective or subjective - he is none of the above since he is not yet capable of drawing conclusions, of conceptual thinking.

I can't really warn against nudity, I would if I could (at an old request made here). In any case, I trust that any mature person can handle nudity in art.

Created: August 25th, 2009

I take "common sense" to mean exactly what Peikoff defined it, as "a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic", and "logic" means "the art of non-contradictory identification" (from The Ayn Rand lexicon) So it is common to all men at all times? To all those that manage to survive by their own mind, not through imitation, yes, I think so. We are humans, after all, without use of logic it's not possible to survive. So I would say that even the caveman who smacks the head of the other caveman that suggested to go hunt with throwing spheres in a circle used common sense. Thanks. I actually got most of the idea from Peikoff. In one of his lectures he was talking about the point with objects to make a similar point (on a difference subject) about our consciousness as conceptual. Yeah, I know. When you don't get the main point someone is trying to make, it's easy to lose sight of individual sentences. I guess my example of someone knowing "this (some object) exists" implicitly is not a clear cut example of common sense. I think it depends in what way "exist" is understood implicitly. Because even an animal grasps in an implicit way that things exist... and the very primitive human probably grasped it in a similar way. It's not enough to reach out to grab an object (which shows an implicit understanding of some sort that it exists). For it to be common sense one must hold it as a concept. You know that game when adults hold an object in one of two hands and they ask the child to try to guess in which hand it is? Well I think that game teaches the concept of existence, in the sense of something is either there or it isn't, it either exists or it does not exist. It focuses the mind of a child not on the object but on the fact that an object can either be there or not, regardless of what the object is. So my point is that when a child like this knows that "my toy exists" implicitly, it is common sense, not a primitive "I see, I grab". I don't see why common sense would only exist after Aristotle (he discovered the concept "Logic") - people used logic implicitly before Aristotle. I was told there is a lecture somewhere where Peikoff explains this, can you tell me which one?

Your question is kind of weird. Why am I focusing on it? Because I am answering the question of whether or not common sense is the basis of the Objectivist ethics in the sense of the steps required to form it. I mean... it's not like I love common sense and so I'm brainstorming all the positives about it. I am only talking about in the context of the above question (which was first brought into discussion by 'whYNOT'). I agree with you, (I have said it 3 times already in previous posts, by the way). I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course it takes a lot of effort and logic far beyond common sense to provide a philosophical explanation of the relation of vision to conceptual knowledge through precepts. But common sense allows every kid to know that humans have vision and that they use it to learn of the existence of objects "out there". And it is just as simple for a kid to understand "my toy" vs. "his toy", "he took my toy", without going to the Objectivist academic center to learn the validity of the senses and their relation to conceptual knowledge. You seem to think that by the above I am somehow saying "Every kid can come up with Objectivism" - no, of course not. Knowing something implicitly and knowing it explicitly (consciously, and integrated with the rest of one's knowledge) is a huge difference. It takes a genius like Aristotle to formulate "existence exists" - it takes every idiot on the street to understand implicitly that things exist out there. As an adult he can no longer rely on implicit use of logic - he needs to understand things explicitly and conceptually. He may be taught that he should not trust his senses, which would mess up his thinking, still this does not erase the fact that the correct knowledge he had to begin with was common sense - acquired by implicit use of logic. So, I'm not sure what else I can add here. I don't think anyone, not me or 'whYNOT' or Grams were suggesting that grasping or discovering the Objectivist ethics IS common sense, something every dummy could do.

That's a nice observation. From skimming the thread it doesn't look like anybody took it seriously, but I do, and I agree with your conclusion. "disrespectful" is more than a preference - it's a character judgement of other men. And as such, adding "to me" does indeed kill cognition for anyone seeking a discussion on the subject. Because... consider the following dialog: "To me, justice consists of economic equality" "You are wrong, it is UNjust to take away people's property by force and redistribute it" "Well, you can't argue with my opinion, TO ME - this is unjust, to you - it is not." This last sentence is like sand in one's motor of thinking, especially for a person not trained in philosophy (which, after listening to some Peikoff lectures, I can say I feel much more equipped to deal with the arbitrary). It allows one to present whatever feelings or argument one has but without the necessity to contrast them to reality, to deal with contradictions someone else might point out. Based only on this conversation though, I don't think it is enough to conclude the above as a mentality of avoiding respnsibility for one's reasoning behind one's ideas. I agree with the distinction KurtColville made. He could simply have chosen the wrong words: "to me" instead of "I prefer", "they are disrespectful" instead of "I feel for some reason that I don't fully understand/ association that they are disrespectful to society". The subject involves a personal preference. It would be a different matter if this is the way they would talk about matters of justice, for example: "To me, this man must be guilty and should be locked. He just looks to me like the type that wants money regardless of who or what stands in his way". See now, that's a whole different ballpark. Why they did not listen to you though - I think that's a bad sign, since what you said added a logical structure to their discussion. What does it say about them if they are not interested in considering it seriously? A single case is not enough to conclude, but it's enough to raise an eyebrow and keep questioning the subject in other circumstances.

I think the Objectivist ethics is based (as the starting point) on common sense. Simple use of logic was required to provide the later difficult conceptual chain of thinking leading to the formulation of the Objectivist ethics. Ayn Rand would not have become a rational egoist if it wasn't for her common sense in ethics - to a child the highest complexity possible is implicit use of logic, example: "this is my toy, why should I give it away?". It is the starting point, on which later explicit connections and discoveries are built on. Even to start the discovery of value as a concept, the inducer has to start by using logic implicitly. One needs to be able to separate, by some implicit rule, everything people have pursued and tried to maintain from values like a House, food, friends, entenrtainment, work etc'. Implicitly, one understands that the later values are good in some way, yet pursued goals like masochism, drug addictions, thievery are different. This is before one even knows the standard one is using. What makes a house a "good" goal yet makes stealing a "bad" goal? "Life as a standard of value" is an answer undreamed of at that stage. One has to rely on implicit use of logic to separate the "good" goals (or values) from the rest of pursued objects/ goals. (I'm just thinking of all of this in relation to what I heard at "O'ism through Induction" by Peikoff. I don't exactly remember his words, but I think the above idea comes from him). I don't see why you would say that Objectivism is not original if it is based in common sense. It's not like every Joe in the street can recite the ideas from Galt's speech... But every Joe in the street can understand "living is good, being happy and healthy is good" when the idea is presented to him in this simple form (like "what do you care if I kill you? Come on, let me do it" vs. "Sacrifice is good because then everybody gets a share of the pie" - a much more complicated idea to break down). I think that rational egoism is common sense, as an implicit idea. The theory is obviously not simple to reach, as an understatement. When normal, average parents send their kid to school, or to have a good time with a friend, they realize, in a common sense way, that it is a good decision because the child needs education for his future, and that enjoyment is an essential part of life, which is why they send him to a friend. If you ask a parent the question at the end of this dialoge: "why do you send your kid to school?" "To get education, it's good and essential for his future" "And why do you consider that as good or important?" - the parent would look at you like you're a nutcase. He may not be able to explain why he thinks such a person is a nutcase, but the reason is that rational egoism is understood implicitly as logical and compatible with reality. The degree of complexity of a subject places limits on how easy it would be for someone to recognize (implicitly) rational egoism as the root of an issue. That's why you can tell a parent "it's good if your child sacrifices for others, it makes a better world" but if you tell them "it's good if your child sacrifices everything, including his life for the life of others" that would be a different matter. Then you would see the kind of uprising you see in town-hall meetings across the USA today. Then the core issue which is rational egoism is much more exposed and easy to see. The further away in the chain of thoughts an idea would be from its core issue, the harder it is to recognize. It does not mean that normal civilized people don't understand rational egoism as implicitly logical. they may also hold other contradictory ideas, but those are not common sense - they are not logically induced, but socially accepted.

Perfect! Saved me tons of effort, and this definition (by Ayn Rand it seems) of "Common sense" is just perfect. [Ayn Rand, question period following Lecture 11 of Leonard Peikoff’s series “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (1976)] No, common sense is not social convention. If you happen to be born in a religious community they may regard the existence of god as common sense, but it is certainly not so, not more than ethics not being a subjective social matter. Yeah, you put it very well. I would only add one thing, and that is that it is not always common sense that "tells me it won't work out that way" - in many cases it could be a feeling based on complecated subconscious ideas which one does not manage to fully connect yet - which I don't think is common sense. Yes, that's a short way of summarizing my first point. (Other one being about an implicit understanding of "life" as the standard of value) Actually, I would argue against it. All major discoveries, including the discovery of logic and induction had to have been first based on common sense - non-conscious use of logic. In "Objectivism through induction" the lecture about ethics Peikoff describes the induction of life as the standard of value by using common sense values. then he also says in one of his latest podcasts that as a "thumb rule" if something common sense seems to contradict Objectivism, it is usually the case that one has a mistake in applying/ interpreting Objectivism on that case, and that it would go along with common sense understanding of the issue. Mosy philosophical discoveries are not common sense at all, they are highly complicated, but once achieved, when a layman correctly reduces them to concrete cases, it does seem common sense - as something that has been implicitly clear all along prior to learning it consciously. I cannot say it about all philosophical knowledge, but to give one example: "Existence exists". In one's own mind, implicitly, this is a "duh". If one were to tell a child "you know, this toy doesn't really exist" the child would intuitively know the adult is wrong. That would be, IMO, use of common sense.

whyNOT: I share your sentiments. I'll reply tomorrow in more detail. It would be nice to finally get a decent definition of what "common sense" is. Your initial description sounds about right.

An oil painting I finished recently without using a reference (as I explained this is the goal I am working toward - to be able to paint from memory/ imagination) By the way, if anyone is interested I am selling prints of my drawings on heavy weight paper for $8 and prints of some of my paintings (like this one) for $18.

Maybe they should cancel the printing of "The Early Ayn Rand" then? I think you should let publishers decide what is appropriate for publication in their company or not. Obviously, Kira thinks it is. In this final word you should respect her enough to accept her choice without challenging it. Otherwise, might as well start offering advice like "I don't think you are ready for dating/ college/ kids yet" which involves just a big of a judgement as pursuing publication. For a responsible rational adult such 'opinions' or advice is an insult. (You want to say that you don't think you would publish it had you had your own company, or that it lacks technical maturity, for whatever reason - fine. But I don't think it's any of your business saying it the way you have - as a truth she should face if she is mentally mature enough to face it). Another point, is that Art does not have to be technically perfect to have value - even tremendous value. _________________ Kira - congratulations! I must admit, I am curious to see what kind of fiction the daughter of Leonard Peikoff writes. Would be an interesting read!