whYNOT

Hilarious and intelligent stuff! Tim's an O'ist poet And doesn't know it. Thanks for this Mr. Walsh.

Sustainable Development = One foot hard on the brake , one foot on the gas. Which will happen first - burned brake linings; or seized engine ? 'AllMenAreIslands' posted "If you wish to invest your time & resources in "sustainability" that should be your prerogative." I share this view :- sure, 'S.D.' COULD have some merit for a SPECIFIC situation/individual, and for the SHORT term. That's his choice. It is the enforced 'Policy' ( by State, N.G.O.s, and United Nations ) that should be fiercely and rightfully resisted. It always reduces to the old story of collective guilt that we are supposed to feel for those unborn generations : Did you leave the planet in the same condition you found it ? Loathsome.

Well, yes; that is very technical,-- and a long way off the stock negative prefixes of 'NON- or 'IN-', or 'UN-'. Don't you think ?

How about "forbearance" ?

An impressive poem. What is it about South Carolina that produces so many literary types ? Something in the beer, I reckon. I liked your mettle cymbals ..... uh, metal cymbals .... mettle symbols... you know. Taking excerpts is uncontextual, I know, but one couplet is particularly striking:- "Southern gentlemanly attitude And metallurgical aptitude" Also :- My father poured in lover's gift / All the very best of him. Well done!

{ There's what appears to be a reasonably fair and neutral description of 'sustainable development' provided by the OP, linked to Wikipedia.} Zedic, you raise some good points. I will certainly look into William McDonough's publications. But, before you assume that O'ists, or even the few you read in this thread, are automatically always against environmentalism, or making "knee jerk, gut reactions" consider this: there are hardly any Objectivists who would want a denuded Earth, just so that mankind can survive. The thing is, that we have confidence in the mind of Man. The O'ist position is that what Man has done, Man can correct (if allowed) - and improve. I, and I'm sure the majority, strongly advocate disparity of species and life. But not at any cost. Not as the highest value. As long as it is the effort and ingenuity of individual men that is allowed free reign, I have not the slightest doubt that we can literally 'eat our cake, and have it' in this area. As long as scientists and innovators can operate freely; as long as the market can represent the Choice of consumers, independent of State interference, or of those ( few, but influential) genuine loathers of their own, and others' Minds; well I, for one, have limitless 'faith' in that ingenuity, and their self-interest, and even their self-restraint. Look, we all know that environmentalism is here to stay. There are a lot of reasons why industry and business will learn to conserve, or even by-pass the use of certain raw materials and certain production methods, and the biggest is their own survival: again, SELF-INTEREST. Another reason is fair and even- handed legislation. Or even the love of natural beauty that we all share to some degree. The opposition you are seeing here ( to s.d.) is principle - based, not practical- based. (Innovators, like those you mention, could well be precisely the thinkers that O'ism admires). O'ists know too well how Big Government, and hate- filled individuals, can hijack the best of intentions towards their own ends. The threat may seem minimal to most innocents, but the doctrines always result in force - one way or another. At the very least, if nothing else, appeals to rationality and freedom, can limit the excesses of these groups. Zedic, you did make me reconsider, and resolve to check my facts further, and for that, thanks.

Yes, it's called "The Cant of Kant, Decanted", by Prof.... Sorry, just being silly. Seriously though, I agree: for the damage he's done to philosophy, politics and thinking, a total refutation is long overdue if there already isn't one.

I think, nanite, you are viewing your philosophy as an academic theory. If Objectivism isn't - first and foremost - a code for me (and you) to LIVE by, then it has not much use outside of the ivory towers. Ayn Rand set up a structure; she did a mammoth task, and even she said in her later years :- "I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." [Ancier interview, 1976] She, and O'ism can't fill in all the blanks or join all the dots. For instance, Individualism. It becomes clear that one's individuality is contained in that Value. One is still a human being, with all the likes, dislikes, characteristics, foibles etc. that you started with - the only difference for an O'ist being that those personal elements become more consistently rational, and even may disappear -----eventually. I sense that your approach is coolly logical, ( your dismissiveness of all-important emotions springs to mind), with pragmatism implicit in what you write. To speak of Man's survival, and what supports it is one thing - but can you imagine YOUR survival as being in the least divorced from "flourishing"? One, without the other, would be no life. I get the idea, also, that you are 'spoiled for choice', a little. Now that's something else I can sincerely relate to. It might be an intelligent, young man's curse. Too many girls, too many career options .... too much time. This is a tricky one - and the answer can only lie in you, but I strongly suggest that you don't let this slide into ennui, and a hedonistic habit. Been there......! and making a 'wrong' decision - one that you can correct later, hopefully - is perhaps far better than never making a choice. Find your own passions, and apply Reason.

"Emotions are not tools of cognition". That stands as a fundamental principle. However, ignore and stifle emotions at your own cost. While adjusting to this myself over many years, I came to terms with the potential dilemma by perceiving my emotions as 'referrents': Signs, that I realised were not to be nullified or removed, but checked over, observed and understood. Further, to be utilised as sources of inherent information, and even pleasure, then gradually integrated (as much as possible) with rationality. This is certainly possible - for an O'ist especially - as long as one recognises that it is an ongoing process (not just sporadic) of introspection. Also, it's essential to be able to forgive oneself for occasional lapses! Be aware, this might not be the recommended Objectivist method; it just seemed to me implicit in Ayn Rand's teaching. I'd like to hear of others' experiences and thinking on this. ?? It may seem at first glance that O'ism is a coldly 'logical' philosophy - and that happiness within it requires so much hard work. Nothing can be farther from the truth, I believe. The short term pleasures (that nanite mentioned) are no more than a very immediate reward during one's celebration of life - and add value to it. In avoiding the emptiness of hedonism, I don't think one should become attracted to joyless asceticism; surely these are false alternatives? But an Objectivist sometimes letting loose and dancing on the table -- hell, yes! Why not. In living a full life, there are values, and then there is Value. When it comes to selecting long term goals and career paths, (this wasn't my strong point back then, either, I'm sorry to say) I don't think anyone can go wrong by following Ayn Rand's own example. When it came to choosing her profession, it's certain she didn't sit down and weigh up the pros and cons, practically and calculatedly. With a mind that would have excelled in almost anything, she took up the riskiest vocation of all-- and wrote. It seems she was driven by a burning desire for the Novel, and for Philosophy. That is her example to us:- follow your passion, as well as your mind.

To address your last point first. What could be 'wrong' with finding that you are attractive to the opposite sex ? It used to be that women were getting all the attention ! We all like being recognized by (and visible to) the opposite sex. Only thing is, is this what you wish to build your pride upon? A man's physicality - or woman's for that matter - the arrangement of his features, and so on, is a matter of chance mainly. I wouldn't say "If you got it, flaunt it", but rather if you got it, don't deny it or negate it. Enjoy it for the little it's worth, ultimately. But appearances aren't of your own making. Turn this around; what happens to that good feeling (that 'self-esteem') when some day a specific girl, or bunch of women, don't even notice you? If that's your source of pride -- disaster. Handsome is as handsome does, my old man used to tell me. If one extended it to 'as handsome thinks and does' it is very true. Rational and moral thought, followed with productive effort (I'm sure I needn't be telling you) is going to be where all your self-esteem comes from. "Floating through life"- "deceiving your self"- "whimsicality"- "evading introspection". Yeah, I knew all that stuff. I'm no psychologist, but it's not surprising that depression results from all this, is it? The great thing is that you have identified it, and its causes - I think that's a flying start. In my experience, emotions need a constant check; they are your barometer, as Rand says, of all your thought and action. Trouble is, they are not reliably predictable. Something that you did (or didn't do) a month ago can only impact now - or sometimes one gets an immediate reaction. Introspection definitely comes with practice; it's hard at first, then becomes second nature. Apart from already being part way there, Geoff, the really great thing is that you have discovered Objectivism; that's a lifetime supply of self-esteem. To make myself really unpopular here, I'll also mention the dreaded 'B' word. Nathaniel Branden's books are (IMO) required additional reading for an Objectivist. That's up to you.

Both sides of this debate have merit, I think, and I for one have been struggling to establish my own conclusions. "Torture isn't a debate of policy, but of morality." (A.G.) I agree. "It is the moral duty of the government to do what is necessary to protect the rights of its citizens."(D.O.) Yes, certainly. The question I'd like to ask is should my government, as my representative, have carte blanche to get up to all sorts of 'dirty tricks' in the name of my protection? At what stage does defense of my rights, by a state agency, become self-defeating of my own ethics? Also, while I'd like to assert that torture should never, ever be used in my cause and my fellow citizens' cause, morally, or pragmatically - considering its unreliability, alternative means, etc. - I am fully aware that the core principle here is a lower value for a higher one. i.e, to NOT torture, in a case of extreme circumstances, would constitute major sacrifice. Living in a Statist country like mine (which has had its own dark past of human rights abuse, including torture), I'm all too aware that the business of government is expansion. Give them a finger, and soon they want your arm.(!) Grant special powers of prisoner 'interrogation', and those powers become entrenched and extended. Then who's next for torture? A drug lord? A suspected burglar? Or is this a bit too dramatic in the case of the U.S.? Anyway, I can only come to a compromising conclusion: Never say never, on torture; but it should only be used selectively, soberly, and as a last resort.

So to complete the twin definition supplied by the Lexicon, Common Sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of non-contradictory identification. Even with the supernaturalism that Thales mentions regarding those ancient peoples; and the lack of any formal 'system' of logic, pre-Aristotle (can this be 100% true, by the way?), deducing that common sense was always in Man, and a part of his consciousness, is not difficult. A man sees the sun rise. It happens again. It is of course a hugely significant event, and all he needs is Memory, after viewing this cycle often enough, to start 'assuming' it's going to occur again. A man traps a wild animal, and after several false attempts, finds that slitting the animals throat renders it immobile, and then edible: Trial and error. A man loses his woman in childbirth, and feels a loss that he can't describe; then, later, another tribesman loses his child to a hunting accident, and the first man senses the other's grief: Empathy. What has developed is a raw, basic sense of Cause and Effect. Memory, observation, trial and error, empathy, and more, have produced in that early Man a pattern of recognition. My working definition of C.S., as self-evidentiary and pre-rational, still holds water, I believe. I do think, Thales, that it is possible to 'over-intellectualise' common sense, and, wrongly, to try to split it from the subsequent development of complete logic, and complete Reason. And surely it has always been with us?

How do most youngsters get started in the vehicle market if not for the good old 'clunker'? I fondly remember my first cars - in those days costing the equivalent of less than $1000 - which I either fixed up, and sold at a profit - or eventually went to the scrapyard. But to see still useful autos being force-scrapped, is quite sad. Artificial economics, all the way.

Lagroht, I might be able to add a little more to the above posters to help clarify things. It seems you have got to know "The Virtue of Selfishness" well. I haven't read my copy for a while, but I think that you could be mis-reading Ayn Rand's central emphasis. When you read "Man qua Man", she is of course identifying the nature of our species - but her vastly higher concern is you (or me) 'the Individual'. She is relating the generic to what is really important, the specific. So, when one reads of the critical importance of living up to the values of Rational Selfishness, she is not only writing of those 'others' that exist here and now; she implicitly (IMO), includes all those yet unborn. Effectively, and morally, they are not our concern, either. When you posted (about a year ago!) :- " If love of the other is a response to their worthiness......of being a mate in a union that produces offspring"- Marc K. was spot-on in replying that that was fine --- if you dropped the last six words. I may be opening myself to debate here: I believe that the purpose of sex is not to procreate. [PRIMARILY]. If Nature could be said to have a "Purpose" (which it of course doesn't ), then it might be argued that 'her purpose' is procreation. This is the determinist's position. My purpose in sex, and everyone's surely, is pleasure, intimacy, bonding, delight in learning about my partner... and increasing mutual Value with her. Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed (A.Rand), and for not very long now, we have learned to command Nature in this respect, which follows that conception, and procreation are largely under our control. The Mind has released us from mere survival, individually, and generally. Having a child is now purely and simply about choice and value. But the popular idea of procreating 'to live on' through one's DNA is of little value, Objectively speaking; as someone here noted, this is Intrinsicist - and at its most extreme, has a narcissistic (as opposed to rationally selfish) leaning, IMO.

Seeing you're recommending one book, written by James Valliant, I have no hesitation also referring its readers to another - "The Passion Of Ayn Rand", by B.Branden. Then, to balance out the vitriolic 'PARC' by Valliant, I strongly suggest Neil Parille's series of articles titled "The Passion Of James Valliant's Criticism". This I found to be soberly and very impartially written. However, he did end it by saying: "PARC's mistakes and distortions are so systematic as to render it seriously flawed...." (vis-a-vis both Brandens' published views of the events ). This ongoing villification of the Brandens as 'immoral' or as 'traitors', is terribly unjustified in my opinion (after the research I have done). But let every Objectivist do their own reading, and make up their own minds.

Still playing, D'kian.....? [LOL]

I believe that Quo Vadis has done me a favour by raising this subject, and in such a forthright way. I am in complete ageement with all ideas expressed in the thread - it is great to see O'ists in such accord. Question: What do you get when you put 2 Objectivists together in a room ? Answer: A schism. (This is with tongue firmly in cheek, so please don't call me on it!) On O'ist to interested non- O'ist :- I take the view as already mentioned, of no preaching, no pandering, but a confident, gracious response to their appeal. I think Self-Interest all the way here; theirs, sure; but mine too; I mean, dammit I want many more Objectivists around in the world!! On O'ist to anti-O'ist:- Best to ignore and avoid them, I've found; sometimes one's silence, or a short rebuttal, is remembered and admired far longer than heated debate. On O'ist to O'ist:- how do "we" manage to keep forgetting that we are all on the same side here? Even with the occasional Objectivist I've briefly got cross with on this forum, say, who lives in Ohio, or India, or Winnipeg, I have more regard and respect for, than my next-door neighbour, or many personal acquaintances. Judging others is two-fold; their 'rightness', as well as their error. Is it not imperative to 'give credit when credit is due' ? Every self-described Objectivist, one who regularly checks his own premises, has no more than a 10% differential of opinion with another one, at any given time (IMO). Which means that all of us are 90+% in agreement, all the time. A solid front presented to the world is the start of a great Brand.

OK, got ya Thales. Your position starts from the uniquely brilliant methodology Ayn Rand applied to create her philosophy:- the Means. Mine started from the completed result:- the Ends. I don't have to state my passionate agreement with your points, do I ? (Or maybe, I must...) In my first post, on the theme of Common Sense, I was coming from the POV of a young 'first-timer' to Rand, who recognises the immediate sense in her writing - because it confirms everything he 'knows' is true. Common-sensically, and pre-rationally, or part-rationally. This might be called the 'nuts-and-bolts' level of O'ism. As he or she progresses onward and upward, so the realisation increases that there is more - much more. But it all stays connected to his starting point. If Ayn Rand had only put across floating abstractions like every other philosopher since Aristotle, her effect on young minds, unversed in philosophy, would have been minimal. Certainly, for me. As it is, we have a structure that ranges from the nuts and bolts level, to the deepest abstraction, all of it interlocked, hierarchically. Her methodology, the HOW she arrived at the "original and deep identifications", (top down, or bottom up, or both, simultaneously) is an absorbing topic that could be addressed elsewhere. The non-contradictory nature of Objectivism subsumes everything Reality based, I believe; even lowly Common Sense.

Where did I state that? There is a large difference between x IS y; and x is based upon y. I posited the second, no more than that. Common Sense has been around a long time. How do you think people survived, and even prospered for centuries, without some acknowledgement of reality? Or, some pre-rational, self-evidentiary, although non-systematic 'Sense': of right from wrong; of true from false; of practical from impractical? Common sense, that's how. So I don't think we can simply dismiss it, as having no value. It is a 'sense' after all - even if one gained by trial and error instead of by Rationality - and has survived purely because it is 'workable'; i.e., is applicable to Reality. "If one does this, that happens".(With objects, with other people, etc.) Actually it could be argued that C.S. has a simple component of "A is A" in it. Isn't this worth considering ? The fact that a minority of people in all that time were motivated to think deeper and harder to gain a greater grasp of Reality - to elevate Common Sense to logic, and then to Reason - is why we have really flourished, of course. C.S. is a rough building block to that end, imo. And on a day-to-day, simple level - while ruled by Rational Ethics - I still have a use for it. But I am fully aware of its subordinate place in the hierarchy.

It was always fascinating for me how 'common sensical' a lot of O'ist ethics are; and how Objectivism is based on 'common sense'. It was like an immediate recognition when reading Rand of "Yeah, of course x is true - I've always known it!" Simple logic is the core of great philosophy. That's why the 'basic, salt of the earth' sort of person - a builder, say, - that I've come across, has usually impressed me with his grasp of reality and rationality (in a totally untutored way). And a University prof or other intellectual 'sophisticates' can be full of bull and irrational abstractions. That's why they say "a little bit of learning (of the wrong kind) is a dangerous thing." 'Common Sense' indicates that 1. it is universal to all mankind, forever; and 2. it is 'cheap' (common) in its basic availability. Either way, it is elegantly phrased. These sayings, by the way, that have been handed down for generations, are interesting in how much logic, or even wisdom, they contain: like, 'Do as you would be done by.' and, 'Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.' and dozens of others. Aren't they a sort of early and primitive Objectivism? (An aside, I have a corollary motto to the above saying that I like to use : " Insist that you are done by, as you would do".)

Don't give up yet on Sci-Fi literature; not until you've tried out the Scots writer Iain M. Banks, and the 8 or so books he's published in the past 15 years. A completely fresh, highly imaginative approach to the genre. I can't recommend him enough then to say I think he has surpassed even Asimov and Heinlein; doubtful? Try him and see!

Hmmm, now what about if that baby happens to be A.Hitler....? Wouldn't 'double' ends justify the one means? Glad to see y'all taking this so seriously.

Yup, the replies above say it all; some added thoughts are that early Capitalism was of a practical nature -" laissez nous faire" (leave us to do) - a recognition that men best created wealth for themselves and benefits for others by non-interference from state and monarchy. But without a moral backbone it was too easily misunderstood, presumed upon, and ultimately derided for being too mundane. It seems that as those early practitioners were mainly Christian, a sort of 'soul/body' dichotomy arose that resulted in those Capitalists becoming guilty and ashamed of their talent to create wealth. This set the scene for the disgusting doctrine I remember from students in the early 70's, that Capitalism was useful, but immoral, while the most perfectly humane system, Marxism, unfortunately didn't work in practice. So every Statist since then has tried to impose a mix of the two.

I am shocked. What the hell is going on over there in your country ? All I see is an increasing barrage of Statist enforcement that I personally find frightening - it makes my nanny- State (RSA) seem free by comparison. (Not that I'm going to get complacent, because sooner or later, the same policies will be adopted here as well.) After all, the U.S. sets the exemplary 'model' that the entire world eventually mimics; if only for the reason that it was once the Land of the Free. Is there any way this latest initiative can be ignored or boycotted en masse?

As a sidebar to this topic, and after consideration, I want to concur that Alfa was correct to take me to task on my conjecture about Ayn Rand's state of mind, or her acceptance -or otherwise - of Branden's psychological input. This was rashly and sloppily written, with some irrationality in it. Thanking you, Alfa. On promiscuity in sex - well I suppose one man's meat is another man's poison - there is no objective way it can be measured, by quantity of partners, or quality of relationship, in a given time. At what stage does healthy experience become damaging? Usually, in my experience, when one has already crossed the line of indiscrimination. From what I know from my daughter living in London, I relate to Matt's disapproval of the casual sexual attitudes, there. She describes it as "almost a substitute for shaking hands, and saying 'nice to meet you.'" Could be any big city, I guess. As for Nathaniel Branden, I remain steadfast in my belief in his honesty; as well as highly respectful of the value of his work. Tony.