SnowDog

Well I thought I was an Objectivist. I've been studying her philosophy for about 17 years. But apparently, by the standards of those here, I am not. Moreover, I didn't realize that Ayn Rand had an opinion on humor. Also, note this: I don't care to offend, but I didn't think that being in complete agreement with Ayn Rand was a precondition for using this forum. As I understand it now, after exchanging emails with the moderator, someone who does not agree with everything encompassed by the term 'Objectivism', should only be using the forum to ask questions and gain knowledge. I don't think I can gain much knowledge simply by asking questions. I need to be able to post my ideas and have other people shoot them down, and tell me why I'm wrong. But if posting my own ideas is not allowed here, if those ideas contradiction something that Ayn Rand said, then I don't think I can use the forum in a meaningful way. I've only been posting here about a week, so I'm sorry I have to leave. But to answer some of the questions directed to me on this topic, let me just say that Ayn Rand is my idol, and has been for a very long time. However I think it's absurd that Ayn Rand would dedicate Atlas Shrugged to supporting the Church, and I find the absurd quite humorous. Sincerely, Craig

No, I'm afraid I don't view it as an attack. I thought it was funny. I don't know what type of humor one would call that, but I do believe that one cannot rationally describe humor. I see no harm in laughing at oneself from time to time. Sincerely, Craig Haynie (Houston)

One thing about the Libertarian Party that I believe critics tend to miss: It's not a static party. Peter Schwartz argues that, because the Libertarian Party accepts the Objectivist politics without accepting the underlying premises, that the implementation of libertarian ideas would necessarily lead to nihilism because of the lack of understanding of the premises upon which the politics is based. For some reason, though, he does not hold the same attitude toward either the Republicans or the Democrats whom are both leading us down this same path. I contend that the Libertarian Party of today will not, and cannot be, the Libertarian Party of tomorrow, if people start joining it, supporting it, and voting for it. In other words, if the Libertarian Party ever did acquire power, it would only be after a large segment of the American populace supported it. At such a time, it will have grown significantly, and then be composed of a much larger segment of the American population. The politics will have moderated quite a bit, but the theme, the underlying premise would still be 'Liberty', and the policies it adopts would be the policies supported by a majority of its members at that time. Those members will be a very different group than the members of today. Craig

Note that "The Ayn Rand Reader" was designed as an introduction for new readers. Craig

It was noted that I may have offended someone with this post, so I removed the post.

Well you didn't actually get there through the front door. (http://home.tiac.net/~cri/index.html) If you had, then you would have read this: "This site isn't hot; it isn't cool; it's, well, it's sort of tepid, a cross between an e-zine and an intellectual rubbish heap. " "This website is dedicated to the proposition that all people are created irretrievable, that they are naturally endowed, and to the last word, however belated. " "This is a large site with a lot of crap, er, fine material in it. It is organized as a monthly e-zine with a table of contents for each month. ..." I thought it was funny. Craig

Get a warrant... The same procedure should apply as if the police wanted to search someone's house or effects. But the whole nature of detaining suspects before trial, and searching anyone's property before trail, doesn't strictly respect a potentially innocent person's rights. It's an exception which is made in the interest of the state, and in the interest of justice, to help law enforcement identify and prosecute criminals. As such it's written into the US Constitution. Craig

Maybe, but for me it's a discussion for another time as it opens up a whole lot of ideas. For the example that I was making, I was trying to be clear that the actor would DIE and sacrifice his life -- not just take a high level of risk. Craig

Cool, but you're reversing the terms in your example, and I think it may make a difference (maybe not). To keep your example in line with the relationship between life and value, it should be: "To see, one needs to maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ. Therefore, one should maintain the specific configuration and activity of the optic nerve termed XYZ so that one can see." Compare that with relationship between Life and Value: "To live, one must value life. Therefore, one must value life in order to live." This is a bit different than saying, "Life is the requisite of value; therefore all values should support life." While life is the requisite of value, it's also a bit more than that. It's the entire reason for the concept of value in the first place. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think this is a clearer example: "To live, one must act; therefore all actions should support life." To me, this seems intuitively clearer because any other type of direction for action would be completely without reason, and acting without reason seems like an obvious dead-end to me -- like Sisyphus and his rock. Craig

Thanks AisA, but I've read her essays on this several times. I can't get any more knowledge from her at this point, but I do plan to reread 'The Objectivist Ethics' again shortly. But to the point, the critics will say that this is circular reasoning, (if they haven't already, I don't know). All we're saying here is that living things should live because they are alive. But the key here seems to be that Life is circular -- it is an end in itself -- and does not need to justify itself in any other terms. In other words, living things SHOULD live because they are alive because this is the nature of life. Notice, also, that it's not just life and value which are interconnected but action as well. For me, the relationship between life and action seems more solid than the relationship between life and value. Note: 1) All living things must act to live, and only living things can act. 2) The reason a living entity can act, is to support its life. 3) Action taken for any other reason defies the purpose and the need for action. So when we say: 1) Life requires action. 2) Action requires value. 3) Value must be directed to Life. All we're saying is that Life has certain requirements which must be fulfilled in order to live, and that any sort of self-directed activity outside of this scope has no reason behind it, and therefore is irrational. Therefore, action without reason is a dead-end. It's like Sisyphus and his rock. But when applied to human life, such logic becomes a little more fuzzy, not because the principles are in question, but because the definition of human life is rather vague. We are far removed from nature where life is a day to day struggle of mind and muscle. Here I sit at my computer thinking, "How am I going to spend my day?" So can one dedicate one's life to being a doctor? Can one dedicate one's life to being a pilot? Can one dedicate one's life to being a philanthropist? What are the limits of human self-directed activity? It seems to me that as long as one is not acting in a self-destructive manner, then one should be able to apply his cognitive fascilities anyway he so chooses so long as it furthers a productive, independent, life. Craig

But you've reduced the idea of a sacrifice to that of just 'risk'. We take risk everyday, (even just driving to work), so I certainly understand that taking a risk for something in which someone has invested a great portion of his life is quite understandable. But your answer also implies, (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that a known sacrifice of one's life for anything would be wrong, if the person could conceivably go about living a normal life shortly after the event. This the conclusion that I draw here, and I find it quite interesting. It looks like Objectivist Ethics can be completely derived from the nature of Life, itself. I had long thought that there was a disconnect here -- a leap from deduction to empirical observation. However, it now looks as if you start with an observation of the nature of Life, then you can deduce the entire ethics. 1) Life requires Action. 2) Action requires Value. 3) Value must support Life. 4) Virtue is derived from value. 5) People must choose their values accordingly, and one's life must become one's highest value. Etcetera... I see another disconnect when we get to the Rights of others, but I'll address that later. Craig

OK, so if I undertand your point, then people should ONLY choose those values which support their lives. So people should not sacrifice their lives for their children, or thrown themselves in front of a bullet for the President? Craig

I think one of the problems with the idea that values "can only" support life is that it's counterintuitive, and seemingly at odds with the definition of value as "that which one acts to gain or keep". We can see, as has been discussed, that some people, (perhaps most), value their children's lives very deeply, and want to keep them alive and healthy, even at the expense of their own lives. But if a value, as a concept, is derived from the concept of Life, and can only exist as something which supports Life, then it seems it's not accurate to say that someone can value their children's lives, apart from their own lives. So when a parent sacrifices his life for his kid, what is he valuing? Can it be said that a parent is valuing his OWN life with such an act? Likewise, if a bodyguard throws himself in front of the President to take a bullet, what is he doing? In this case, it's much less clear because such bodyguards have much less emotional and personal attachment to the people that they protect. Are these types of bodyguards valuing their chosen careers above their own lives? Are they acting irrationally? Craig

Hello! I've read that speech many times. I never disagreed with it; I just didnt' understand it the first time I read it. I still don't understand parts of it. This morning, (and I don't have the text with me now), I looked back over some things that Ayn Rand had said about value. Paraphrasing she said, to separate Life from Value is worse than (something you would think is bad). I must have read that paragraph dozens of times, but never quite 'got it' until now. I think learning is different in some people. Some people can read things one time, pick it up, and assume that everyone else who has read it, draws the same thing from it. I, on the other hand, have to understand it thoroughly -- be able to make breakfast with it, so to speak. I'm still not quite sure that my epiphany was correct. I'll be reviewing that for the next few months, even. Sincerely, Craig (Houston)

Wait a minute. I thnk I've had an epiphany. It seems to me that it may have been mentioned earlier in this discussion, but I just caught it. Most of this discussion has centered on the idea that there is a disconnect between the idea that "life is the precondition for value" and that "the pursuit of life should be one's ultimate value". I had thought that there was no way to derive the second from the former, but now I think there is. Follow this: 1) It is life that brings about the idea of value. Without life there is no such thing as value. 2) To stay alive, one must pursue values. To pursue a value IS to pursue something necessary for life. I think the disconnect comes when one thinks that a value is simply "that which one acts to gain/keep." While this may be a good definition, the purpose of gaining and keeping anything is to stay alive. This is where the idea of value comes from. This is why the idea 'value' is created. 3) Therefore one must value one's life as one's highest value. To put anything else in its place is to reify a stolen concept. It's the same thing as acting without purpose. Or to work without a goal. It would be like saying, "To live, one needs to eat. Therefore one should eat so that one can drive a car." The purpose of eating is to live. Likewise, the purpose of pursuing value is to live. It can't be anything else without losing meaning. Does this make sense? Craig