whYNOT

Yes. When a thread goes long enough, you can forget its original purpose. Still, it's been fun. Of course, the islander turned it into a lifeboat scenario by effectively removing any choice for our poor swimmer -"it's you or me, buddy!" I hope our hero fed him to the sharks.

Well, to be exact to the 'brief' by the OP, there is no mention of the island having water and food for only one - which is why it's not a classic lifeboat scenario - which is why this is so interesting. It all gets a bit circular, starting from the premise that the victim has the right to kill the intruder. We just return to : does the intruder have the right to defend himself in return, maybe overpowering the islander, and maybe having to kill him in self defence? Further - is he not morally * obliged * to save his own life, when faced with irrational resistance... to the extent of killing a man? Or is morality trumped by the rights of the owner, to whom he should meekly surrender his own life?

Oh, okay. Wasn't sure about that. But then if you take 'Islam' as genus, the differentiae are many more than is given credit for, generally. I'm sure this has been done to death in this thread, but there is far more disagreement between sect, sub-sect, and sub sub-sect, than we know. According to a friend of mine - a restaurant owner, who is an atheist Israeli Muslim (!) - it can come down to what one's local imam's interpretation of the Q'ran, is. And the Q'ran is contradictory. This is why - holding in mind the many Muslims I've met - I can't paint Islam with a collective brush. The enemy of you and I, are a tiny core - these should be targeted, not the ones dancing in the streets and burning flags. They are simple sheep. Many, the vast majority, are just wanting to get on and live well and feel virtuous by attending mosque. Any difference you see with all religions, there?

Also: it's the political correctness of it all that is so sickening. For decades, 100's of thousands of US flags (the symbol of the achievement and greatness of a Nation) have been burnt on every dirty street in every dirty town with cameras rolling - and not a word of reproof from the world. However, I cannot agree with returning the favour in kind and lowering one's own standards to the same level. Double standards? Yes, and proud of it.

Here is precisely where I differ as well. To my understanding 'Religion' is a concept, as is e.g. 'Capitalism'. Is Coca-Cola - or Hinduism - a concept, also?

"It does not merely embolden the enemy, it demoralizes us." Grames, this is a powerful statement, and something I've been thinking about since 9/11, so I had to react. Some questions: Who is the enemy? (briefly) - Those who do harm to the West; those who support harm to the West; those who wish harm to the West; those who ideologically don't like the West; or, those who just happen to share the same religion as all the above? Who is "us"?- Objectivists; freedom-loving Westerners; or, members of various competitive religions, Statists...etc. I believe "we" should be more careful about fighting others' battles for them. "Embolden": strengthening one's confidence and courage. What do you think is more confidence-building to an enemy - for the US to quietly, and without fanfare, absorb one more religion, and one more mosque, into its vast milieu (business as usual) - OR, to panic, make mistakes, restrict liberties, and surrender its reason and principles to fear and hatred? "Demoralize"; who would be demoralized but those whose morale and morality was lacking, anyway? Those who can only think collectively, who can't see the forest for the trees, and who can't or won't see that it is Individualism that makes the USA great - that Justice demands that every context,( and every Muslim ), has to be viewed as a separate entity. For those of us elsewhere who believe that your nation is still the only hope for any liberty in the world, the reaction to the mosque has been saddening. (And I think it is a terrible idea to build it, even if it's not meant to be provocative; but when is any religion going to be rational?)

This won't be the first or the last time that O'ists are asked to tone down their language. Perhaps we should start using "uncool", and "awesome!" to make ourselves more comprehensible and acceptable. First, in the context of Objectivists debating with each other here, this vocab is necessary to fast communication of concepts. Second, speaking to outsiders on whatever subject - art, economics, politics, ideas, etc - I for one, do adjust my language with similes and synonyms; but without diluting the principles involved. Third, for ourselves, I am sure that each O'ist develops - through ongoing introspection - his own internal structure of 'degrees' of assessment (judgement). For instance, personally I use "evil" very selectively, for extreme applications. Another one, I do not believe that taking a "freebie" is the height of 'evasion' - my argument is centred on the increasing habit of evasion, starting with small things. Last, why should we give a damn for those who are critical of Objectivist words; the people who have seen the truth in the tenets of O'ism will get past the words - those without sincerity and who can't face the truth, will fall away whatever language we couch it in. I don't remember the exact wording of Rand's famous reply when she was asked why she insisted on using (that ugly word) "Selfish". She said, "for the very reason that you hate it." She had a superlative command of English, but refused to equivocate and prevaricate. To refute or create a principle it must first be stated at its most extreme.

Followed by Marc K's, "are you proposing a dichotomy between morality and Rights?" Well, not a simple one, but let's see. a. Just because one has a right, one is not required to always enforce it. (volitional) b. Rights are derived from morality. c. Morality holds Man's life as the highest value. d.Therefore, in certain rare situations, Life, the life of others, takes precedence over one's rights - to a rationally self-interested person. Which means that the islander, or the country, have the right to chase off interlopers - but would be irrational to do so. I don't see this as presenting a dichotomy, but as a hierarchy, with Morality superior to its derivative, Rights. Am I missing something, or rationalizing, with this argument?

Looks like this discussion has been derailed by invoking the Trader Principle. The principle is at most secondary in this context, and has become a red herring. What is primary, as Sophia and others keep insisting, is the principle of rational selfishness - the effects of constantly conducting such transactions on oneself and one's view of reality. Over-consideration of the handout policies of a business should not concern one - how many peanuts, how many books, etc. - we must assume they are acting in their self-interest, and are profiting from the policy in the long run. Another perpective: Anyone has the right to put a huge pile of dollar bills on a pavement and invite passers-by to help themselves; would me grabbing a handful be practising evasion? I think so. Why the guy is doing it is unimportant. (Mad, stolen money, altruistic - what's the difference?) But do I want to live my life hoping (or expecting) for the same thing to happen every day? How many such incidents of taking advantage of freebies does it take to become a reality-faker? I don't believe you know until you become one.

Well, exactly. As you say this is not a conventional life-boat emergency situation... although the debate is drifting that way. What makes it differ is that it's not an either-or, my life-your life, scenario. I don't think that "both parties initiating force" is the way out, though it is worth considering. No, which force comes first? Man A likes living alone on his island and will uphold his property rights; Man B is desperately trying to save his life. The initial force is by A, denying access to his property, then followed by B's opposition to that force. So, DEFENCE of property, can, in some unusual contexts, be deemed to be initiation of force. This improbable context leads to the immorality of placing rights of property ABOVE a man's life. (Come to think of it, there is a very realistic scenario where precisely this has happened - when people are fleeing persecution in their own country, and illegally cross a border into your country; should they be thrown back... or given sanctuary?)

Anyhow, I would fight to survive - to death, if necessary. I don't believe it would be Objectively immoral to do so - not when one's highest value is confronted by irrational force. "Do as you would be done by"- though not Objectivist, is a fairly useful default position, in general, dealing with others. Its corollary is "Insist on being done by, as you would do." IMO

This scenario on an island opens up another absorbing thought: There is not - I infer - a single O'ist who would refuse entry to his island of a helpless castaway. Why is that? After all, we are not altruists, and we staunchly defend property rights. With the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, I could only imagine that the person refusing entry to the castaway would be a collectivist/egalitarian/religionist (pick one), but never an egoist. Interesting, but maybe obvious.

Three things to bear in mind: This is an endless series of transactions with the book store, not just a one-off. (..."keep getting refunds...") One's concern is not primarily that the business is getting sufficient value from one. One has to assume reasonable self-interest or pragmatism on their part. One's major concern is that one is getting something for nothing - continuously - and gleefully planning to always do so.. (Remember that cake, and eating it?) In other words, Who are you trying to fool? Evasion is not about one single instance; it's about escaping reality on a long-term basis - it devolves from an action, a practice that becomes a habit, that becomes one's character, and one's view of reality. And that ain't peanuts.

Then what would you say to the suggestion that the force is initiated by the island-owner - by refusing to let you land, and threatening to kill you?

That's it Dante. How do you think of yourself? is the final arbiter. Only I can know what my motive is when entering into such a transaction with the book vendor: Am I honestly intending to take the books 'on approval', likely keeping some, and returning the others; Or, am I dishonestly intending using the shop as a freebie supplier, while I work my way through their entire Fiction section? At zero cost. (Interesting how this innocuous and boring seeming topic has become a significant 'premise-checker'.) As a parallel, I've heard of a shrewd stratagem by couples living beyond their means, who take advantage of the approval policy of antique furniture shops. Come the weekend, and a planned dinner party, they borrow some expensive pieces from a store to 'see how they match' - to impress their guests - and return them on Monday as unsuitable. Illegal, of course not. Faking it? You bet.

I consider the use of Bacon's quote in this context to be extremely apt. "Subjectivity must be acknowledged before objectivity can be achieved", is excellent. Actually, I woudn't stop at 'acknowledged,' but would go further, to encompass 'respected' - which is exactly what we grant Nature, too. Respecting, to command. Is - ought. I think there is a perception, particularly among new O'ists, that Objectivism and subjectivity are mutually exclusive ... to the detriment of understanding both. What about "Individual subjectivity, to be objectively commanded, must be identified."? Great input from all participants here.

OK, didn't mean to interrupt. I just represent one segment of the O'ist culture, that may be quite common. Interesting, btw, the number of 'formally' trained intellectuals one rubs shoulders with here. (Also, with M. and E. and Logic, I'm sure Ethics, Economics, and Political Science were a breeze for you.)

I admit I'm one of those whom MIndy mentions. I seized upon O'ism so fast that it was many years until I gained an interest in other philosophies - and then only as a comparative, academic excercise. Told by friends back then that with my interest and aptitude, I should take up Philosophy at university, I used to reply, "what for, I've found what I need." Now, I do find that some basic instruction in the methodology and principles of the discipline could have been beneficial.

Only advantages here, with no downside. This is one of those instances that what is in your self-interest is also in the interest of nameless other people. Call it the trader principle, applied to your kidneys, heart, retinas, etc Look at it this way, if you'd have been the benfactee of an organ transplant already, would you be more or less willing to donate your organs at your demise? So why wait til then. Hotua makes the ultimate point, that your love of your own life, gives you appreciation of all life.

Derek and HLM, All one has to do is contrast "Ecky" Tolle's garbage, with one of Rand's most succinct (and quite unknown, I think) sayings: "Your ideal as a thinker is to keep the Universe with you at all times." The exact opposite to what Tolle preaches, is true - the more you think and focus, the more you see the larger scheme of things, (in fact actually care more about things too), and the more present you are in the moment. Those great numbers of people who buy his books are going to find themselves up a blind alley one day, if they manage to follow his advice.

Grames and Leonid, I understand my error concerning emotions now. Thanks. The key was the statement : "This kind of faculty has no power of observation and no volition; it has no means of independent access to reality." My mistake was that knowing emotions have a causal link pertaining to reality, I believed them to be existents. I do think that one can be conscious of consciousness, although any conclusions drawn from that process would be subjective knowledge. It must be important to differentiate between Subjectivism, and subjectivity. The one is the philosophy of Primacy of Consciousness, the other - as Leonid and Mindy say, is still valid as a source of understanding.

I know that personal tastes are subjective, but I haven't established that about emotions. When one is experiencing an emotion, it is as real as any idea, or concept in one's consciousness. In fact it can be identified, and 'objectified' via introspection - and to a degree, even traced back to its root cause: something one did or didn't do, and so on. (Ayn Rand said "there can be no causeless emotion.") She also said, "It is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." In other words, not that dissimilar to a conscious thought. As the OP wrote, can one's consciousness be conscious of itself? I believe so. And if an emotion can be separately observed by consciousness, then doesn't it follow that it exists? (Even if only to oneself). Therefore it is Objective. I've been considering this for a long time, and would appreciate some input.

Yes. Also 'leaving' O'ism is one thing, but how much will Objectivism leave you? There isn't anything out there close to such a rational and integrated system, that I can see.

Um, well ... yes, OK. Glad to be of any assistance.

Ragnar, I haven't had time to read everything here, so may be repeating what others have said. You believe it seems that being in love necessitates surrender of your self. That there's a kind of trade-off between the two. And, possibly, that your loved one requires/demands that. (?) It is a common perception, but it is fundamentally flawed. Without a fully conscious ego, one has reduced focus, thought, 'worthiness,' introspection, feeling, and ultimately, awareness of the loved one.. How can such a person love deeply? The powerful emotions that love releases, bring about a sense of unity and comingling, that is very potent. Two individuals seem to become one - but with a little time usually react and recoil against it. Each lover should not only preserve their individuality, but it should actually be enhanced by one another - in my experience and long consideration, only two persons of fairly high (and roughly equal) self-esteem can aspire to love. Do you seriously think that those emotions will be lesser in this case? Anyhow, I can't prove this, but it's a conviction that I sincerely hold, and believe it applies universally. Also, if anyone appears to want you to suspend your 'I' in the name of love, be very wary...