nimble

I'm still curious as to why libertarianism is evil (with a lower case l), it is merely a word loosely associated with those who advocate free-will and its political implications--that is that freedom to act is a requirement of life, and thus all people should be free to act in so far as they don't impede someone else's freedom--because it is a requirement of all human life. Now that is not word for word what an Objectivist would consider the basis of political philosophy, but I don't see it as evil. And now that term is even more mainstream and merely means advocate of small government. It think it is like being opposed to atheism because some atheists have bad arguments for not believing in God. What am I really missing? Is this merely a practical stance, that some libertarians are nut jobs, therefore its best to stay away from the fanatics with bad logic?

If reason and volition are all that is required to have rights, then this article isn't too far out there. Robots will probably require rights within the next 50 years.

Don't worry, I knew what you meant, and thank you for your answers, they have been more helpful than usual in clearing things up for me. Chris

Okay, I have one final question (I hope). I think you convinced me that Objectivism rejects categorical imperatives, but I still believe it is amoralism, and here is why. So we have established that morals are purely contextual and are all hypothetical imperatives with the basis of morality being "IF you want to live life as man qua man, then you ought act in your rational self interest as Objectivism defines it" (I use Objectivism just to avoid any conflicts about the actual moral code being used) What happens if you don't want to live life as man qua man? Does that give me free reign to act as I please? It may be a long road of self-destruction, but why couldn't I be a prudent predator? I think Nozick asks the question, I am asking. Is everything morally permissible when I opt not to hold life as man qua man as an ultimate end? In other moral systems, there is some objective moral code that says stealing is inherently wrong. I'm definitely not advocating those systems, but I am merely asking how a system of all hypothetical imperatives actually constitutes as morality in what people commonly mean by it.

Thank you very much...that post cleared up a lot. I was kind of waiting for you to post anyway, aren't you in linguistics? Again, I never made the claim that you absolutely should not refine/redefine things. That's anyone's choice, however, if it causes confusion then it is the burden of the refiner to clear it up.

I think the standard definition of possibility is adequate, maybe not for Objectivism's purpose, but I do think that "not inherently contradictory" is a concept that can exist and relate to the world. And that IS the standard definition of possible. I think one can say that X idea is "not inherently contradictory" and have it be a true statement. Thus it holds truth value and works as a concept that can have a word symbolize it in language (eg-the word "possible"). Whether that suffices for Objectivist explanation of epistemology becomes the problem of Objectivism. And I do grant anyone the right to redefine terms as they feel, however when others don't understand what they mean, the burden lies on them to explain what they mean, using some form of language that is commonly accepted. And it might just be entirely more practical to make a new word, but that's a separate issue, and I'd be interested in what Rand thought about making new words. But I can look that up on my own. Also, I have a question I understand how a word can be meaningless or self-contradictory, but how can a definition be inadequate? I mean couldn't you theoretically pack more meaning into every word? I could change the definition of the word "hello" to mean "greetings, how are you doing?" since I usually say "hello, how are you?" anyway. And that way I could make the word "hello" more adequate for my usage, but I don't think that would cause anything but confusion. If words are just auditory symbols, so long as the things they represent can relate to reality in some way I don't see how they can be inadequate. Whatever they don't explain can just be explained by another word, or am I mistaken? Thanks Chris

I think both of you are missing the point the word itself isn't that important its the concept and whether the word is recognized as matching the concept by others. If i want to use "wise" to label the concept "not true or false, but has no evidence to support it" then thats fine, however if no one recognizes that term as valid, then I'm in for a hard time. Also, I will run into problems with people who think the word "wise" means something entirely different than how I am saying it. So because I am creating a concept that isn't already in the dictionary, I ought create a new word for it. However, I do recognize that there are multiple definitions of words, like RationalBiker said...so I suppose it is okay to use possible in two different ways, however I think it is best to put an asterix (spelling?) near it and explain how its different from common usage, when using it.

Okay, I accept that I wasn't fair in implying (not stating) that Rand changed what she didn't like, because I don't know that---I only suspect it. And you are also correct that things do have multiple meanings. However, I ask you--do you like how the word "liberal" was stolen and changed over time, to mean it's exact opposite? If you don't then you ought be with in saying that when one wants to make a new definition, they ought use a new word.

By the way, I apologize for calling you softwarenerd. I wasn't paying attention---inspector.

First SoftwareNerd, you read correctly, I agreed. Second, words need be specific to the concepts they represent. They are auditory symbols for concepts. However, it is also true that words serve zero purpose if you use them in a fashion that others are not familiar with. I could arbitrarily move every word in the dictionary down a spot to represent the next definition in line, that way no words are lost, and no meanings are lost, just words would represent different meanings. The words would still serve as succinct auditory symbols, so they fulfill their first role, but then when I spoke them, no one would have a clue in hell what I meant. And thus they would fail the second role of communication. So, if no word previously existed that explained things as "neither true nor false, but has no evidence to support it," then why not create an entirely new word? Leave the old one with its old meaning, and create a new one for your (all you's and your's are in general--not specifically anyone)personal use. That way when the word is uttered, there is no confusion about what it means, instead the person you are talking to will not have a clue what the word means and will ask you, and then you can give him the definition. But when you redefine words to something other than the common definition and do not forewarn people before using it in an argument, that is a huge error in argument technique. And I would argue that it is best to stay away from redefinitions. Every word in the dictionary has a definition, and if you want to create a concept that isn't already in the dictionary--then you ought create a new word for it, not steal a word who's definition you don't like. And obviously I am not accusing you of this, because I doubt you've written any philosophical works that redefine things as you see fit. However, just in general--it is bad habit to have.

Ummm...if you read the title of the thread, you will find that the last 3 pages have been off topic, so I wouldn't worry about posting off topic. Haha.

I agree with you SoftwareNerd on what you said, however I think you are overestimating the post-modern movement. In my opinion, it is dead in every academic circle except language arts and anthropology. So I don't know how much of a fundamental threat Rand is. I would argue that for most intellectuals, pursuit of knowledge is a cultural status game, that no one takes that seriously. So I'm not sure that someone who has no experience with Rand would say "oh gosh, her certainty scares me to the point that I don't want to read her." But I do accept your stance as legitimate given your skepticism of anyone who went to college and studied philosophy. So, I thank you for your time. Chris

I will refer everyone back to my post, where I argued that academia isn't opposed to her core tenets because honestly, they aren't new in academia. People have been free marketists, materialists, inductive epistemology, and been selfish ethically. So if that's all you knew of Rand and had not read her to learn how she is a variation of those stances, I don't think you would hate her without having read her. Just like people don't hate Aristotle, Neitzche, Hume, Freidman, etc. And as for having more Objectivists in academia, I intend to be a prof of either Economics or Political theory, so hopefully I can change that a bit. Thanks Chris

I think it could be argued that knowledge of wavelengths, or diameters serve as a means to an end. There are reasons why anyone even inquired to know the diameter of an electron. If principles are facts, just like wavelengths and science is the study of facts/nature, then science is also broken up into two categories: applied (means based) and pure (knowledge as an end in itself). So I think JL made an error when he asked if principles are means or ends, but wanting to know principles is either a means or an end.

I suppose I did underestimate your contempt for MAP. However I completely disagree with number 2. They don't have contempt for Rand and her ideas (some do, I'll concede that), but Rand is not the most radical person I've ever read. There are complete hedonists who advocate doing anything your whim wants. There are philosophers who argue that agriculture is the cause of all troubles in the world and we should regress back into hunter-gatherer types. There are people who openly support facism, socialism and terrorism and still get more leeway academia than Rand, why? I honestly don't believe it is simply for her ideas. I mean someone who hasn't read Rand might think, that she has Aristotelian/Neitzchian mixed ethics, Lockean political theory, inductive epistemology, and materialist metaphysics....all of which are not scary ideas that one hates without even having read her. People do read Aristotle, Neitzche, Locke, Hume, and any materialist you can name without hatred, yet they have contempt for Rand. I don't mean to blame Objectivism for the mess MAP is in. I'd honestly like to study the history behind Objectivism in philosophy. I mean even if Rand had a bad reputation as a person, I'm not sure how that should affect her standing in academia. Neitzche was a crazy jerk, but people still read him. Lastly, I want to say that you don't have to reject Objectivism to persuade people. And you do so yourself, with your co-workers. Of course there are people which can't rationally speak, and obviously you can't deal with them. However I doubt that every person involved in MAP is evil by nature in believing say Kant. People believe in God, even if it's only because they have not challenged it yet. If you believe people can only learn through induction, then it stands to reason that they can't know what they haven't encountered yet (ie-those who haven't read Rand). That IS the reason people read lots of philosophy, to get ideas that took people lifetimes to think about, and take what they worked on, analyze it and go on from there...and they pick the best which fits reality. If I am not all that smart and can't derive a philosophy on my own and all I have read is Kant and the Bible as my only serious texts, and I choose to be a Kantian--I don't think that is evil. The person just hasn't challenged it yet, but he will when he reads a text or gets an idea that opposes some tenet that a Kantian holds. And hopefully he chooses the one that matches reality. Now, assuming this kid has limited time (as we all do) he doesn't want to read every work ever written, he wants to read those that will grow his understanding of the world exponentially, and if popular culture advises him that Rand is a waste of time then he may never read it. So having a culture adverse to Rand only creates problems of reaching potentially rational individuals. As I said before, lacking knowledge is not evil, but refusal to change when given the right info. is what is evil.

He said that rational self interest is either an end or a means to an end, which I think is a perfectly legitimate dichotomy. All things are either ends or non-ends. All things are either A or not-A, that is a basic tautology, which I think holds. If life qua man is your end, and rational self-interest is a principle that leads you to that, then it IS a means to an end.

Sorry to post twice in a row, however I read this said by KendallJ (this is not a personal attack, I think highly of you as an intelligent person, but I think you handle discussion in the wrong way) "No actually, I think my post indicated that it is not necessary to get much past the table to contents of OPAR to see that your claim of "substantial" support is questionable. It takes less time to look at such structure than it does to find your single sentence on p. 337, so one wonders why you skipped it. My expectation is that when someone chooses a quote to base their argument on, they have examined the heirarchy of the arguments to know if their citation is relevant, and essential, and in proper context. It doesn't take that much time to verify this. It only took my about 5 minutes or so to locate your quotes and put them in context. This is sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst. How someone can skip over the chapters specifically dealing with the development of the key arguments and find his justification in a derivative chapter is beyond me, and not worth rebutting as argument. I can weaken your assertion just fine by calling into question your source for support, and since I don't have much time either, this is the easier course of action. I provide a higlight of the Objectivist argument here. In other words, we haven't even gotten to the substance of your assertion since your claim of substantial evidence is, on the bare surface of it, suspect. Wanna try again?" This to me smacks of arrogance. The last 4 or 5 sentences do nothing but cut the original poster down and question his integrity, intelligence and assert KendallJ as being a psuedo-victor. The original poster is studying Objectivism and partaking my questioning it. He isn't trying to undermine it's legitimacy, so why treat this as anything other than a discussion? Comments like "My expectation is that when someone chooses a quote to base their argument on, they have examined the heirarchy of the arguments to know if their citation is relevant, and essential, and in proper context." are unnecessary. This possible constructive criticism of the original poster is undermined by this unnecessary jab at his intelligence, and it puts KendallJ up on this pedestal of superiority. "This is sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst." That is just pure trash talk, and a fine example of why discussion is not possible with all these passive aggressive ad hominem attacks. Thanks Chris

I am not taking personal offense, and I am sorry for seeming as if I did. Also, I really prefer talking to you and David on this forum, you both have always been helpful to me. So don't think I would accuse you of what I mentioned above. However, I still do feel that it is of poor choice to dismiss any philosopher or mode of communication modern philosophers might have, simply because they are theoretically wrong (please don't pick apart the word theoretically, I used that so that it doesn't become a debate about the rightness of any said philosophies). The rightness is irrelevant. My point is that, you have all these people who exist in society, who you have to interact with since man is a political/social animal of sorts (ie-he isn't ever in a "state of nature", where he must fend for himself all the time with no aid or interactions with humans)--it would be beneficial to have these people be rational. Let's suppose that the majority of these people if thoughtful at all, then they are in the mainstream of philosophy. So they have misconceptions and wrong definitions by your standards. How are you to get those people seeking understanding of the world to view it in the right way, so as to make yours and their life easier? Is it by attacking that which they hold as ideal? No, its by discussion. Calm, rational, unbadgering discussion that lacks arrogance. You may be in contempt of the philosophy they hold, but anyone who is familiar with persuasion or humans in general will know that badgering is not the way to seek truth or persuade. It will almost certainly create social barriers that prohibit communication. Everyone on this forum admits that for an Objectivist society to last, the majority of the people in the society have to uphold at least basic things like rights. Well as far as the market for ideas has spoken, Objectivism isn't winning, and rather than be resentful that others don't see it as you or I see it, it makes much more sense to improve its marketability. Everyone knows that in the long run a product sells itself, but the salesman matters, and if you do a poor job representing the philosophy, the philosophy looks bad. This is WHY Rand took great lengths to make sure only people approved by her spoke on behalf of the philosophy. It is in your interest to persuade rational beings to advocate rights, not by attacking them or viewing them as evil, despicable beings, but by showing them errors in logic or mistaken facts. This may take a while, maybe months to adequately convince someone to change their position, and you may not be willing to do that for an individual, but don't ruin it for those of us (me) who will try to persuade someone to be a free-marketist. I absolutely hate that I can't mention Rand without getting flak for using her as a source. Purposefully making a bad name for Objectivism in mainstream culture does nobody good (it makes your interactions with non-Objectivists harder, and it ruins a potential fount of knowledge for others who might have been interested but knows only bad things about Objectivism). Thanks Chris

Go ahead and move it, because I'd like to discuss it. Thank you

This may be the start of an entirely different topic, so before I move on I will say thank you to those who have replied. I think the fact that there are emergency circumstances that allow you to violate rights, that answers my question. And I appreciate it. Now onto my other point. I considered myself an Objectivist for 3 years, but when I started having serious issues and questions as I read more outside of Rand, the people I talked to were condescending, snide and often very unhelpful. I don't think it is in any Objectivist's self interest to make the entire academic community hate Rand, if your goal is to create a society of rational egoists. I dislike that Objectivism redefines terms pivotal to philosophy and makes communication very hard. When you use the word morality (this is just a random and not necessarily true example) differently than any other person who studies philosophy, it makes finding any common ground of understanding difficult. I am assuming that when you argue you try to persuade people, by making communication difficult and by saying vague things like 'you aren't in tune with reality', when someone has a legitimate dispute. That does not help understanding or persuasion, and actually does nothing to add content to the discussion at hand. Now, I love Ayn Rand's novels, and I love the derivative works used to form her philosophy...but I think that given the context of many situations, it is not in one's interest to be arrogant, unclear, or antagonistic during a discussion. There are tons of trolls who come on here, and try to pick fights; also there are tons of Objectivists (or people who claim to be) who do the same thing. I hope that even though I often disagree or have questions, that I at least appear sincere in my wanting truth above all things, that I appear polite and respectful, and that I am not being prickish by merely seeking pride from defeating someone in debate. Thanks Chris

Okay Dismuke that cleared a bit up for me even though you weren't replying directly to me. I do remember a quote from Atlas Shrugged though that said errors in knowledge are okay, but refusal to correct them given the right information is evil. If someone has the exact quote I would appreciate it. Let's say this tax man merely doesn't realize he is acting against his best interest because he doesn't know any better. Is it then morally permissable for him to violate rights? If you see what I am getting at, is there any circumstance in which it is okay to violate rights, even be it complete ignorance of the certain facts of reality?

I've read and own OPAR, Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, ITOE, Return of the Primative, We the Living, Anthem, Capitalism, and Philosophy Who Needs It--I've been in multiple Objectivist campus organizations, and no one has been able to adequately answer my question without referring to some odd psychological argument, which simply doesn't hold in a discussion about philosophy. We've established that Objectivism doesn't allow for categorical imperatives, but is instead consequentialist. Thank you for clearing that up. Now my question is, how do you go from saying anything is justified so long as it is in my RATIONAL self-interest long term (benefits outweigh the costs for the entirety of your life), to saying that it is never morally permissable to violate rights, please refer to my scenario. Thank you

I don't feel that you have answered my second question. I find it to be absolutely absurd to say that every tax collector or statesman or monopoly lawyer is not seeking his self-interest given the context of his situation. Rather than changing my original example, let's stick with it and explain exactly how it is bad for the thief long run, assuming that the vendor won't pursue him, and the government doesn't adequately punish, thus actually giving long run incentive to steal for him. In that case I think society and the government and the vendor have failed morally in not adequately seeking their self-interest by making it wrong for this kid to steal the candy bar...rather than this kid being wrong in stealing the candy bar. Thanks Chris

Okay, let's concede you aren't amoralists, but what someone would call an amoralist. Now, how do you assert that it is NEVER in one's long term rational self interest to violate rights, regardless of societal, pyschological and government structures?

No, I think you might be missing the distinction, rather than the entirety of philosophy not understanding ethics. Hypothetical imperatives are what you ought do given a certain contextual goal. For instance Mill would say you ought support capitalism because it provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people. He does not say that you ought support capitalism because it is inherently good, but instead only because it provides the most good for the greatest number...if for some reason capitalism started to collapse and not bring about the greatest good to the greatest number, then he would say don't support capitalism. Thus he can make a claim to do and not do the same action based on different contexts. If every person and every situation is contextually different by definition, then there is nothing that always ought be done in all circumstances(categorical imperative-like do not violate rights EVER). This is by modern standards, or any standard I am aware of--amoralism. Chris PS-This is off topic, if we'd like to get back to my question.