whYNOT

What Galt does NOT say, is "You don't have the right to hold me". It seems he's inferring that his standard of self-ownership precedes and supersedes Thompson's power. Effectively, is he not stating that as long as he is alive, no matter the circumstances, his mind and choice is inviolable? Galt is in charge of the situation, because he doesn't even recognize Thompson's power over him. "Who's is this life, anyway?" is obviously rhetorical, Leonid, but I'd be interested in your justification. It's an area which I think transcends 'rights' in the social context, and should receive more attention.

But intellectualammo, do you not think that you're starting from 'the ideal', and trying to track back from there? I am only reiterating what DonAthos has stated: implementing the 'ends' will be an improbability without a rational morality, making necessary at the very least, forceful persuasion, if not direct force. Further, if we even arrived there, sustaining it would be a total impossibility. I believe the opposite, that better not do it at all, than do it so badly. (But this is an interesting exercise, for all that.) It proves conclusively that one can't selectively pull out a 'good' political ends, and an epistemological means - while ignoring or playing-down the other two: the metaphysics and ethics. A perceived value is a value to whom? And why? Otherwise, it is simply a decree. In fact, I think you've found the formula for utilitarianism.

Dead right. It's rare to see such a measure of anti-intellectualism in this place. Thankfully.

The podcast is worthwhile, but not surprising, and as you say could apply both ways. Trying to get my head round Objectivists "misinterpreting" O'ism - and being ousted as a result... Is it possible to be a. an intrincist O'ist? b. a subjective O'ist? That was a new notion for me until I read LP and DK, on the subject. "Peikoff is giving voice to intrincism - a belief that the truth is revealed and that error reflects a willful refusal to see." [ D. Kelley: Truth and Toleration] Also: "Fundamentally, the choice is objectivity vs. non-objectivity in its various forms. Being objective in practice however, does require a kind of mental balancing that sometimes feels like striking a compromise. We have to hold in mind the requirements both of reality, and of our own nature, and if we focus too narrowly on one, or the other, we tend to slide into intrincism or subjectivism." "Compromise"? " mental balancing" ? not things that I wanted to hear, as an Objectivist. Except. I know what he means. Who of us picked up our first Ayn Rand novel, followed by everything else she wrote (in quick succession) and did not get a 'sense' of "revealed knowledge"? I'll bet that it lasts to this day in many of us. Partly her style, partly her self-evident truthfulness, partly her sense of urgency in her terse essays, partly the reader's own hunger - lots of elements to this. Of course, she did, and would, reject intrincism with contempt. She proved every step of the way. But the effect still lingers. Emulating her (or trying to) can lead to dogmatism, in my opinion. I know what Kelley means by the narrow gap between subjectivism and intrincism. It is that (I suppose) psycho-epismological sense - again - that one is both observer of, and participant in life. Kinda like simultaneously watching a play onstage as an audience member - and being the main character in the spotlights. Part of the value, the essential one for me, of Nathaniel Branden's works, is that he 'ties them together', and avoids both pitfalls in the process.. (An 'enemy of O'ism'? hardly. Perhaps its greatest supporter, in hindsight.) As an afterthought, it's occurring to me that the difference between the DK 'school', and the LP one, is not only epistemological, but also metaphysical. That is indeed a very deep divide. Personally, I will continue to learn from both schools.

Grames, I would rather focus on the positive aspects. As is commonly known, Rand implicitly and explicitly repeated that Objectivists should never accept any authority over their minds - especially, and even her own: "The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth." From this, I take that it is irrational to enshrine any authoritative figure since a. he or she can make mistakes; b. far more importantly, it interferes with one's own relationship with reality. "...an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."[Galt] I know that Peikoff has made some brilliant contributions to O'ism; similarly, Kelley has been of great value to me (and the fact they are at a seemingly insoluble intellectual impasse doesn't escape me - but 'to choose one side' is an error of mutual exclusion, in my mind). I am just as certain that in (due to?) his prolific Podcast output, LP has made some rationalistic errors in recent times. That Diana Hsieh honestly pointed them out should not draw such virulent criticism, nor put her beyond the pale. He should thank her. Thankfully, none of us is omniscient. Without deliberately going out to make them, in my view, one is not really trying hard, unless one does make mistakes...to then correct them. Objectivist principles are not only contained within a set of books, but in the life and mind (errors and all) of each of us. They are not a suit of armor, nor a straitjacket, nor a hair-shirt - they are a tool and a guide with a singular purpose.

It's your conviction then, that once respect is earned, one may revert to authority? Anyway, I covered that with her "right" - by which I mean her 'moral' right. And was Rand never authoritarian, in your opinion? It's clear that I emphasize that this was the exception, not the rule.

I regret I was not clear enough. Celebrating our mutuality, rather than seeking out our differences, is my core point. I don't understand schisms rooted in the interpersonal - ESPECIALLY within Objectivism - but accept it has been a phenomenon of our history. The 'big split' had some hallmarks of this: personality conflict, followed by rationalized intellectual differences. Are we condemned to forever repeat our past? Ayn Rand, by virtue of a giant intellect, possessed authority; and, she tirelessly advocated for self-authority of mind; then, contradictorily, she occasionally lapsed into authoritarianism. Only she, and she alone, could pull that off, imo. No one who followed her, no matter how brilliant, had and has that same right: to impose knowledge by authority alone. If the present schism is as you see it, "a social split", well of course everyone should go where they're most comfortable. To "disavow others" in the process contradicts that, though. The exact 'false dichotomy of mutual exclusivity' O'ists hear often from interested parties("But if you stand for this, then you must automatically oppose/support that!")is now being self-applied. So we descend to sub-categories of "us" and "them". Invented ideological differences, or insoluble ones, the fact remains we are closer than we think. I urge some perspective, and being objective about Objectivism.

SoftwareNerd, More schisms! Original approach, and half-playfully I'm imagining it taken to its logical, absurd outcome - each Objectivist becoming his own Independent Institution. Yup, *individualists* would you believe?! Where we started. Seriously, though, as has probably been mentioned, it is all becoming ridiculous. If one O'ist tends toward dogmatism, and another to intrincism, another, subjectivism, etc, I for one have confidence that they will correct those as they go along. Simply because I know I will, to the best of my ability. (And if that's subjectivist, too bad.) O'ism's methodology, and plain-old not so simple living, will eventually reveal wrong premises, more truthfully than any 'premise checker' group will - and with none of the authoritarianism. Biggest certainty is that I have more in common with some guy or woman in Baltimore, or Cedar Falls, or wherever, than with my next-door neighbors. And I get on fine with them, usually. Let's not 'glorify' our minor distinctions.

'Sex and the malevolent universe premise'? In his first post? I think this fellow's having fun.

Hmmm...pas mal, peut-etre vous avez raison.

Yeah, It is an interesting quote by Kant - which I compared to that by Aristotle: "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." As distinct from "application of the virtue of justice", I see this one as application of the virtue of pride. It is a favorite quote of mine. I should be clearer on this, (since it is critical) but I suppose Objectivism holds that the virtues alone (isolated, and apart from one "gaining or keeping values") is intrinsicist. ie, as opposed to Aristotle, virtue has no "inherent value", as you put it. Is that correct?

musenji, A really clear description of the mental and emotional benefits you gain from meditation. Hell, maybe you should be meditating twice daily. 'Reason' being, I guess, that this could better counter anxiety by being pre-emptive, instead of merely reactive. Would you say that's valid, in your experience?

"You can't hit your sister, because it's WRONG, not because you won't get an ice-cream". But why is it wrong? No answer. Although an intelligent fellow, Penn bears out my rough theory that though it's true one can't begin to think with rational totality until one becomes an atheist - the rationalist principles many atheists live by (secular humanism, 'logical' skepticism) means they might just as well have remained religious. Two steps forward, one step back.

Well, Hotua, it appears you answer yourself very well! You got it, in my opinion, with your scale of values. To the often-mentioned fact that one can't value life without reference to one's own life, I'd add that one's hierarchical value system, down to the lowest forms of life, automatically 'pulls up' everybody and all living things the higher it progresses. Actually, not so automatic: it follows from paying attention, from full consciousness. Has anyone stopped to observe the incredible will to live the lowly and despised cockroach possesses - and felt some admiration?

Your and my aesthetic appeal towards landscapes, human figures, bird-song and so on, obviously have value for us - filtered through our personal 'senses of life'. A desolate desert scene, for instance, that I may find beautiful says more about my psycho-epistemology, than about the scene, itself. The landscape is a "metaphysical given." I see a kinship here between this and Rand's portrayal of naturalistic art - but may be wrong. She readily admits that Naturalism can be beautifully and truthfully done. (Don't recall her exact words.) Romanticism, however, doesn't stop with beauty and aesthetic appeal. Roughly, it goes on to speak of man's nature and his place in the universe - as filtered through the artist's metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Anyhow, long story short, I can accept that aesthetics is the broad concept, consuming all that we find pleasing to eye and ear - ie, aesthetically appealing.

Daniel, I wouldn't say empathy is negative - if one feels it, it is reality, and like everything real, should not be buried. Perhaps you mean empathy is impossible to fully act upon (to put right for the person, or whole world for that matter, who is experiencing pain.) The irrational is the impossible or the insane. [AR] That's the problem with empathy, that it is an involuntary, emotional reaction which is hugely limited in what can be done. The tipping point in responding to pain, imo, is how much can I do to alleviate someone's pain? How much should I continue doing, before it becomes self-sacrificial? Is a monetary gift sometimes much less significant than one's time, advice, and full consciousness given to the unfortunate person? What we hear is that the world will be better for everybody helping each other. I think the world will be better if less people needed help - if there were a culture of self-reliance, not one of constant victims. I believe Rand's central point is that suffering should be viewed as a temporary anomaly in mankind - it is not his proper state. Now THAT we should encourage in others, not victimhood feeding off our guilt. For the rest, (iro charity) one's own values and volition come into play, as other posters have noted. In the short term, it's right and moral to respond to a stranger's distress: Galt's Oath does not state "I shall not assist another being" - but rather - "I shall not live my life for another."

The bad drives out the good, again. The good, existing as a conscious, compassionate, self-directing and rational person - a complete human being; whereas, the bad, prohibiting from the person all those qualities, to be replaced by the advocacy of duty and sacrifice - a resentful slave. As the recipient, a proud individual requiring assistance, who would you prefer? (dumb question.)

Certainly I don't think Leonid has stated anything against voluntarism - if anything he has reinforced it. As some wise Objectivist said here once, it is far better to be for something, than against anything. Rand indicated similar. Except...when the ideology is so anti-life, that it must be rejected at very turn. Such is entitlement. A *culture* of entitlement is so insidious that it gradually subsumes an entire nation. Nothing can be done benevolently and voluntarily - in this case, any more. When it is demanded - worse, presumed upon, it is no longer by compassionate choice, but by coercion, or guilt. (And guilt is coercive.) That's the state of society I see here in my country. You in the USA have had a taste, it appears, but not enough to quench your natural and rational goodwill, or from individual voluntary action. THIS is the logical outcome of altruism-collectivism: contempt for the suffering - and their hatred for you - and may you good Americans never know it.

Productivity is an individual virtue - only. It doesn't speak of quantity, profitability, or GNP - which would become a utilitarian position.

Fair enough, you are arguing from the base of 'business good-will', (which is appropriate to the gist of this thread) while my argument is on the wider concept of 'reputation'. No business would ever be sold, if it did not have a solid clientele at time of sale. Present turn-over, and client base are objective, measurable, entities - and are a property of that business. The value of good-will, however rests on the premise that it is unchanging and stable. I don't think this is fully rational, and maybe even intrinsicist by nature. I've seen several successful small businesses - like restaurants - being sold for huge prices, only to fail within a short time, although the new owners ran them exactly as previous. One may place a dollar value on good-will, but like reputation, it is a perception, and can be fickle..

Reputation, per se, good or bad, only infers that an amorphous bunch of people have an opinion of one - that they have observed and induced predominantly moral (or immoral) behavior from this person. While a good reputation is valuable, it can't be the property of the person the same way his honesty and integrity are. If, as I think, it's a broad evaluation by others, it is therefore their 'property': And it may be untrue, or it may be subjective. For instance, I might appreciate a person for his forthrightness, fairness, and honesty - but another person would dismiss him for being rude and hurtful. Not to say that a good reputation is not worth pursuing, but it doesn't carry the same value as "the reputation you have with yourself" - as N. Branden defines self-esteem.

Reidy, Which should be enough for her impeachment (or whatever you do with Justices). Not only for her disdain for the US Constitution, but for her ignorance. When every 'special interest' group has rights, then nobody has rights - that's what she applauds?

Nicky, I think you're right: force, coercion, fraud, etc. is the only benchmark for objective law - whether, or not, there is financial loss involved. Financial and material loss is not criterion enough, iow, without the presence of force. Everything outside this parameter is for rational citizens to settle, amicably, or through civil suits.

Here, I'm not so certain. A lie told to you has no direct correlation with material loss or damage. (Unless you are very dumb, then it's your own responsibility if you believe the guy who sells you the Eiffel Tower.) A lie told about you, however, is 1. outside of your control to respond to. 2. can be financially destructive 3. makes you an involuntary victim. By these criteria, wouldn't this be an objectively criminal act?

My laziness always looks for the simplest solution. Am I being over-simplistic by demanding nothing more from a limited government than that it protect individual rights? It is not my right (surely?) to NOT be lied to. By any source. When government enters here, (honesty and truth) it is not enforcing individual rights, but morality. Morality is not the business of g-ment. Let the reader beware.