Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ed from OC

Regulars
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ed from OC

  1. Objectivism looks like empiricism, where everything is based on what you can see and measure.

    "Rationalism" and "empiricism" are two different schools of thought in philosophy, neither of which subsume Objectivism.

    Rationalism, loosely speaking, looks to build intricate, detailed, orderly systems of thought out of "pure reason" -- that is, by deduction from premises, without looking to the facts of reality. Adherents cast down upon reality declarations of how it "must be" -- without bothering to actually look.

    Empricists dismiss rationalist thought as detached from reality, and respond by becoming concrete-bound, anti-conceptual and pragmatic.

    Objectivism begins with observation of reality and uses reason to integrate perceptual data into concepts and principles.

    For a more formal analysis, see The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy in ItOE. (In particular, see the section "Logic and Experience.")

    Side question for extra credit: why is there such limited discussion of the two schools in the Objectivist literature? The Lexicon only has one reference (to FNI). I thought there was a section in OPAR dealing with it, but I don't see it. (The final sections of some of the chapters there are polemical: "Idealism and Materialism as the Rejection of Basic Axioms" or "Mysticism and Skepticism as Denials of Reason." Why not a section on rationalism and empiricism?)

  2. Within the limits of the genetically given and economics, appearence is a matter of style. It is, to an extent, an expression of how one wishes to reshape the universe. It expresses an aspect of one's personal value hierarchy.

    One can dismiss fashion as unimportant and opt for comfort and function, which says that this aspect of my life is not important. That doesn't tell people, however, whether you have other, much higher values, or you are indifferent to values as such.

    One can also turn it into a value, saying, in effect, "I like the way people look when they take the time to dress well. I get pleasure from that." Or: "I prefer to look a certain way of my own choosing, rather than the haphazard manner of a bum."

    One reason to dress well is to express appreciation for others dressing well, so that someone else can take pleasure from your appearance. (That's something to remember for dates, by the way.) It can mutually benefit you and the people you interact with.

    Of course, it is not either-or. There's a spectrum: from the bum to the fashion plate; from the indifference of Roark in college to the secondhandedness of Keating; from someone who takes a few minutes every morning to look "good enough" to the "metrosexual" who has regular manicure appointments.

  3. Could you imagine someone seriously trying to integrate behaviorism with Objectivism?

    Let's see...

    First, deny the existence of a volitional consciousness, substituting in its place some notion of stimulus-and-response which, given sufficient complexity, creates the illusion of consciousness.

    Well, one third of Objectivist metaphysics is the axiom of consciousness. So I guess we can dispense with that. And, of course, if I'm not aware of anything, I can't take existence for granted. And if existence is identity, then identity is out as well. So much for metaphysics.

    So if consciousness is not real, then we don't need rules to guide thinking. It's just an automatic process, after all. So we throw out logic. And if we aren't actually aware of an objective reality, then there is no such thing as a faculty to integrate sense data into concepts. There goes reason.

    And, when it comes to actions, these are just the response to various stimuli. So we don't need to define and develop a code of principles to guide our choices. Likewise, we can't give out moral blame or praise, since everyone just passively responds to stimuli. So ethics is right out.

    Socially, we don't need to recognize the minds of others, since those don't exist. There's no justification, then, for leaving the mind free from physical force. So much for freedom, individual rights and capitalism.

    What about art? Well, not much need to concretize one's metaphysics or experience one's sense of life (those being consciousness-related thingies). Of course Ayn Rand's whole exposition on the connection between freewill and Romantic art must be wrong, too.

    So let's see how well I did:

    No metaphysics, no epistemology, no reason, no ethics, no capitalism, no Romantic art.

    Boy, I didn't do too well, did I? Maybe they are slightly incompatible after all... :D

  4. But here's my question, can we say that Objectivism and rational philosophy refer to two different concepts?

    Of course. "Rational philosophy" refers to philosophical ideas, systems, or methods reached through reason (properly defined). That's a concept that subsumes many things, including Objectivism. Objectivism is not a concept, but rather the proper name for a specific concrete: the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

    Would it be correct to say that Ayn Rand's Objectivism stands as the highest example of rational philosophy?
    If someone shows me a better one tomorrow, I'll stop being an Objectivist. Until then, how could I answer this question except with a strong affirmative?

    And if at some point in the future it is realized that certain of Rand's formulations were imprecise or perhaps even wrong then that new knowledge will be part of rational philosophy and Rand's errors will be ommited?

    If that happened, yes. More likely, we would delimit some aspect of Objectivism to some context in which it is true, while this new knowledge would express either a more general truth or truth in a parallel context. That is, after all, the general nature of contextual knowledge adapting to new insights. An example might be some new insight into psycho-epistemology or a theory of induction.

  5. Philosophy, as a field of knowledge, does not begin and end with Ayn Rand. Down the road there may be many new discoveries and identifications that Ayn Rand didn't make. In that sense, the field of philosophy is not and cannot be "closed:" it would imply omniscience to declare that there was nothing more to discover or develop in the field.

    However, the particular ideas generated by particular philosophers are closed, once those philosophers stop contributing to philosophy. What Kant had to say, for instance, will never change in the future. So it makes no sense to claim that Kant's philosophy is "open" to revision.

    Now "Objectivism" is the name Ayn Rand gave to her philosophy. What she had to say (philosophically) marks the entirety of her philosophy -- period. If someone agrees with part of it, but not all, they should not call themselves Objectivists. "Objectivist sympathizers" or "Ayn Rand-influenced thinkers" would be more appropriate and honest.

    Some people want to modify Objectivism and still call it Objectivism. Kelley, for instance, thinks toleration and benevolence are virtues unto themselves, rather than special cases of justice.

    So while philosophy as a field is open, the particular philosophies of philosophers who are no longer around are closed. As we develop new ideas in the future, the field of philosophy grows to encompass those ideas, but the particular systems (such as Objectivism) will remain as they are today.

  6. Larry Kudlow argues that the problem lies with Euro deflation, rather than dollar inflation.

    "Is there too much panic about the so-called dollar decline? You bet there is.

    Most of the recent drop in the U.S. currency has come against the euro. But Europe has dug itself into a deflationary hole in recent years. The volume of euros is way too scarce, and taxes, government spending, regulations, and unemployment are way too high. Why anyone would want to invest in Old Europe’s socialist policies is beyond me. Surely it isn’t worth deflating the U.S. economic recovery, or the dollar, just to play Europe’s perverse game.

    The dollar, in actuality, isn’t really weak. A broader dollar index of 26 currencies published by the Federal Reserve paints a much stronger picture. Since February 2002, the dollar has fallen 14 percent from a greatly overvalued position that deflated the U.S. economy into recession. However, over the last 10 years, this broad-dollar index is basically unchanged. The dollar is at nearly the same point today as it was in 1994. During this period the average inflation rate in the U.S. was 1.8 percent."

    Read the rest of the article here.

  7. Which translations (rather than editions) of Que Vadis and Les Miserables are the best?

    About the latter, Graham Robb writes in his Victor Hugo biography:

    "The best-known English translation (Penguin, 1982) is a Swiss cheese of unavowed omissions and bears out Hugo's comments on translation as a form of censorship. ... Hundreds of bizarre, arresting images are lost in the process." (footnote, p. 382)

    There's more discussion here.

    There are several translations out there, and I haven't compared them all firsthand. If you have a rare or used bookstore nearby, see if they have an older copy with a different translation. Even then, I'd carefully compare a couple of passages.

    I don't know of a really good comparison of the various translations of Hugo's novels, but perhaps someday a Hugo scholar would put one together.

  8. It doesn't take much imagination to see "suicide bombers" caring tactical nuclear explosives strapped to themselves walking onto an Air Base in Baghdad, Italy or Germany.

    FYI, even the smaller nukes are too big for one person to carry. They could fit just fine inside a van or large SUV, though.

    Given the context in which the War on Terrorism is presently being fought, ultimately I think the idea that there are "safer" branches of the military is fallacious.

    What I'm suggesting by all of this is that if your own personal safety is your primary concern, then you definately should not be in any branch of the military, particularly in the context of the War on Terrorism.

    I disagree. The military branches are HUGE organizations, with (I'm guessing) maybe a third in potentially life-threatening roles. There are plenty of roles to fill behind the lines -- logistics, medical, procurement, administration, recruitment, etc. I've met several former Navy personnel who went through a brief boot camp, got technician training, and never even set foot on a boat! They did their tour of duty as technicians on land. In some cases, aside from wearing a uniform, you wouldn't know whether they worked for the military or a private electronics firm.

  9. I miss Alias!! Jennifer Garner is going to be in the Elektra movie coming out in January but i like her best as our favorite butt-kicking spy. :D

    I hope the Elektra movie will be better than the dull Daredevil movie. If they keep Ben Affleck away it won't be hard. :D

    I miss Alias, too. It's one of the few TV series worth watching regularly.

  10. I wanted to focus on the more abstract essentials pertaining to the morality of jealousy...

    What do you mean by "morality of jealousy?" Jealousy is an emotion, just like sadness. Does it make sense to talk of the "morality of sadness?" One feels sad at a loss (of a job, friendship, etc.). It is a normal, automatic psychological response.

    While we certainly don't seek to be sad, it certainly isn't deserving of moral condemnation. Now if somone like Bin Laden is sad that a bomb attack was foiled, it is not his sadness that deserves condemnation, but rather his ideas and actions.

    The same with jealousy. If someone is jealous, what matters morally is what he is jealous of and why -- not the jealousy itself.

    I want to caution against a certain line of thinking that leads to repression. One can't directly control emotions, as they are effects and responses. Don't say to yourself, "John Galt was never jealous; I'm feeling jealous right now; therefore I must be wrong and a bad person." If an unpleasant emotion appears, the way to get rid of it is to track down the cause, which can be external (for instance, an attack on your values) or internal (for instance, insecurity or holding contradictory ideas). When the cause is found, work to remove the cause -- and the emotion will take care of itself.

    For heaven's sake, don't beat yourself up for being human!

  11. Since Soulsurfer asked the questions and is "close enough to the concretes", don't you think it's his option to summarily dismiss those comments or suggestions which do not apply? 

    Of course. My comments were intended to discourage rationalism and armchair therapy. It's one thing to offer encouragement or general advice in an anonymous online forum; it's quite another to try to diagnose or analyze someone's personal situation.

  12. In this case I do not see any evidence of unfaithfulness, so I think your problem is realy insecurity about your relationship.

    The issue Soulsurfer brought up is very personal and complex. Nobody on this board knows him all that well. Hell, nobody here even knows his real name, let alone the myriad of circumstances that come into play with the situation he described. There are a whole host of details that need to be looked at to answer his question. On that basis, I would summarily dismiss any claims on this board that anyone here can answer his question.

    This is not an endorsement of skepticism or complexity worship, but of context, and the fact that everyone here has an insufficient one to supply him with an answer. We can discuss the principles involved, but we are simply not close enough to the concretes to act as surrogate therapists or to provide a substitute for introspection.

  13. I just saw the movie "Kinsey," in which Liam Neeson portrays the author of the famous study on human sexuality. This movie is particularly excellent at immersing the audience in the puritanical culture which Kinsey fought against.

    The best part, for me, was the reaction of the audience. When the most absurd claims about sex were presented, the audience laughed. We've come such a long way from that time that these notions are not just quaint or old fashioned, but don't even deserve to be taken seriously. (Examples: there's only one position; foreplay is unnecessary; cunnilingus leads to problems delivering babies; etc.)

    This is the culture we live in. Sex is out of the closet. Knowledge about it is "out there" -- in schools, on TV, in books, in playground discussions, on the Internet. Even if tomorrow Bush wanted to put the genie back in the bottle, he couldn't. It would take such a massive effort that it could not succeed. Even if he did shut every bookstore in America, how could he stop the internet?

    The facts of human sexuality are so widely known and available, thanks to science, that the myths and misconceptions of a moralistic medieval mindset can gain no widespread acceptance in the modern world.

    This is one more data point for my argument that we are far, far from a return to those days, let alone the establishment of a Christian Republic of America.

    P.S.: The movie was excellent. I'm not familiar with the details of the actual facts of the story, but if the movie is remotely close to the truth (as I believe it to be) then Kinsey deserves to be granted Sainthood for leading the charge for separation of church and sex. (No puns about Catholic priests intended...)

  14. One worth a look is the Institute for Justice. Dana Berliner, daughter of former ARI head Michael Berliner, is one of the chief litigators. My best friend from college, also an Objectivist, did PR work for them a few years ago.

    They aren't a think tank, but they do a lot of pro-freedom litigation. Eminent domain, for instance, is a big anti-freedom issue, and they are fighting for the right side. The website describes them as "libertarian", but from what I've heard and seen, they are just pro-liberty, and I don't think there's any significant reason to lump them together with the usual Libertarian suspects.

  15. I'm just looking for good books with intriguing plots and I figured where else to find them than here. Maybe I'm idealizing all the objectivists and am deceiving myself into believing that they write as good as Ayn Rand, but I'll know if I'm right only when I read their books.

    If you're looking for good books, you aren't alone. There's plenty to read out there, but mining for the gold takes time. There are plenty of recommendations in the various Objectivist articles and newsletters.

    When it comes to good art, the "how" is as important as the "what." The giants of the art world certainly have the style down, but the explicit philosophy is usually mixed if not outright bad. So for literature, look through the classics. You may find that some 200 year old book is still in print for a reason.

    I'd caution, though, against equating "Objectivist artist" with "good artist." While the explicit philosophy they present may be agreeable, I've found that they may be lacking in the quality of their work. Personally, when it comes to art, I'd prefer high-quality art with bad philosophy than good philosophy in a poorly done work. I know several Objectivists, though, that have no interest in great art, and will, for instance, only see movies that have reasonably good philosophical premises and/or a good sense of life. One Objectivist I knew several years ago told me at the time that he couldn't finish "Les Miserables" because of the altruism. That's a crime. I can't imagine forsaking the passionate joy of that experience for anything.

    Ideally, of course, we all want to see both parts. Someday we will see many more Ayn Rand-inspired works of art that rank with the best works.

    Happy reading!

  16. Yeah, of course I tip.

    The best service I've ever had was in Japan. EVERY restaurant I went to (thank you, corporate expense accounts!) had excellent service. Without exception. And there's no tipping in Japan.

    It's interesting going to a restaurant with a band of merry Objectivists. Many times there'll be the one guy who insists on paying exactly 15%, to the penny, and will sit at the table calculating exactly how much that is. Everybody else kicks in enough to cover their share and then some. It's a penny wise, pound foolish situation, because he's willing to alienate people for the sake of a few pennies.

    Good grief! :rolleyes:

    Being cheap can be an expensive proposition.

  17. Ed, why no mention of The Virtue of Selfishness? That's what I would recommend as a first AR nonfiction book.

    Whoops! Yeah, that's an oversight. :blush: The Virtue of Selfishness is indeed a good starting point. If you are interested in ethics, that's the one to read.

    Agreed. OPAR is very systematic and more like a textbook than AR's essay collections, which are more thematic.

    I disagree about OPAR, though. I wouldn't lead off with it, simply because it covers everything. I think it would be better to get a broad overview, then some details, and then move on to see the connections between all the points as laid out in OPAR.

    Of course, there are people who read OPAR immediately after the novels, so I wouldn't say it's impossible.

  18. 1. Having read the aforementioned books, which do you recommend I pick up next? I don't want to pick up a book that assumes one has more knowledge in the philosophy than I do as of now, and risk getting confused by not properly understanding her terms.

    2. Is there some sort of online Objectivist dictionary that I can refer to when I browse through these forums and come across a term whose meaning I don't completely understand from an Objectivist standpoint? If not, which one of Ayn's books addresses this?

    Welcome, Tamara.

    I don't think there's a specific order in which things need to be read, so look over the various essay collections and go after whatever raises your interest.

    There's a suggested reading list at the Ayn Rand Institute's website.

    Search around that website and you'll find a number of essays and op-eds. Also check out the Ayn Rand Bookstore for the range of things available.

    If you are more interested in fiction than philosophy, you might try We the Living, Anthem, and Night of January 16th.

    For aesthetics, check out The Romantic Manifesto.

    For politics and economics, try Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

    Her book on epistemology -- Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology -- I wouldn't recommend for someone new to her ideas, unless you have a keen interest in the subject and already are well versed in philosophy.

    Her other essay collections -- The Voice of Reason, The Return of the Primitive / The New Left, and Philosophy: Who Needs It -- focus on a range of topics.

    Some disagree, but I think a good overview of her ideas is Allan Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand.

    Regarding your second question, Harry Binswanger wrote The Ayn Rand Lexicon, which, while not an online reference, I've found very useful.

    Hope that helps. Enjoy the journey.

  19. Are there any writers of fiction who present objectivist viewpoints, and which is consistent with objectivist aesthetics, other than Ayn Rand?

    I know of a handful of struggling Objectivist screenwriters and directors. Aside from Bernstein and Cline, I don't know of any Objectivists that are published novelists. There are some writers who acknowledge Ayn Rand as an inspiration, especially among libertarians. Steve Ditko, for instance, created Spider Man. He was (is?) a huge Ayn Rand fan, and even had a character named "Mr. A" at one point (as in "A is A"). I don't believe he ever wrote a novel per se, or to what extent he's an Objectivist, but he was certainly aware of Ayn Rand's ideas and consciously attempted to incorporate them into his work.

    But who knows... I suspect several Objectivists dedicate some of their spare time to writing. Hopefully some of that work will see the light of day soon.

  20. To my earlier post, let me add:

    I think there's something to be said for those who can make themselves happy in a more...important kind of way.

    "more important" -- to whom? for what purpose?

    I ask because the reason why you consider some motive more important than the pursuit of money could be a mistaken premise. Remember when discussing values, there is always a context: there can be no values without some living entity doing the valuing. That is what creates the possiblity of objectivity in values.

    So implicit in your question is some sort of premise that says something is more important than money. As you think about this issue, ask yourself what it is that is more important, and why.

    Some common ideas of things that are more important motives than money are: sacrificing one's interests for the sake of others (altruism); serving God; serving the government; promoting the greatest good (utilitarianism); destruction for its own sake (nihilism); etc. Of course, the subjectivists could say that no motive is any better than another.

    It's not enough to leave one's understanding of the range of motivations to just money or "other". Pursuing money as a primary has its own problems, but it is certainly better than a number of alternatives society pushes on us daily. Even if you see that money should not be an end in itself, the question is still open as to what one's primary motive should be. It is important to know consciously what that proper motive should be.

    Thanks for bringing up a very philosophical topic.

    P.S. to Dagny: you're welcome.

  21. That's an interesting issue, but a complete enough answer requires some elaboration.

    At certain points in life for most people, we have to take jobs that bring in money to pay the bills, where the money is the main reason for having that job. (Summer or part-time jobs in college, for instance.)

    But that situation is not what a productive career is about. Ideally, the chosen career path is in sync with one's driving passions and deepest values. An example of this is Roark. For him, fame or fortune is secondary (or even less). In contrast, Keating's interest in actual design work is minimal; his primary concern is fame and fortune. If you want to know Ayn Rand's opinion of which is proper for a human being, look to The Fountainhead.

    The other consideration is that one's career must be productive. That means more than just holding a job and doing it well. The actual work must produce something that enhances one's own life. There's a danger in today's mixed economy (and mixed premises) to choose a career that instead of promoting life-promoting values, actually promotes things that ultimately are detrimental to one's life. For instance, these can take the form of anti-freedom (such as providing assistance to a sworn enemy of the USA, or working for the IRS) or immoral activities (such as promoting multiculturalism or environmentalism).

    To answer your question, then, I don't think the primary focus of one's career should be material gain.

    Let me add, for the sake of accuracy, that material gain is a noble pursuit. Wealth provides one with a wide range of material goods (housing, health care, sports cars, vacations, etc.) that clearly enhance one's life. Scientists make life-saving discoveries, but it is the businessman who brings that discovery and related technology to the masses. It is this enormous life-promoting value for which businessmen deserve enormous financial compensation.

    For businessmen, stock traders, salesmen, etc., the accumulation of wealth is a yardstick for judging one's success (for instance, am I making more money this year than last?). They may seem to be focused exclusively on material gain, but I'd argue that what matters for the very successful businessman is the activity of doing business. Men like Michael Milken and J. Paul Getty have said that after a certain point, making an additional million or two doesn't really matter; it is the job itself -- the love of the doing -- that drives them.

×
×
  • Create New...