whYNOT

As an Objectivist, you might have been accused of arrogance several times. That is because it has become second nature to you to 1. pass judgement 2. to have an independent mind 3. to be expert at reducing any situation to it's basic principles. When one comes up against authoritarians , or irrationalists, mystics, or just those with wishy-washy , second- hand views, the quiet certainty of an O'ist is an affront. They will tell you - How do you know? What do know about Politics, bringing up a child, sailing a boat, etcetc. ? You aren't qualified to speak. What gives you the right to judge? Of course I am assuming here that you have gathered all the data possible, and applied your mind fully to a subject, before making an assessment. The arrogance now lies with your accuser,in being presumptuous enough to assume that you can't think for yourself. I find this common today, and insulting.

Thanks for reminding me of that excerpt from Letters of AR; It puzzled me on first reading as the closest I have ever seen her get to the admission that one can be aided by others in the battle of life. Now, it reminds me of her high degree of warmth and humanity which coexisted with her uncompromising intellect. Also of her extreme awareness of life around her in all it's levels, from slot-machines to human endeavour! No ivory tower philosopher, this!! On luck: I noticed [ on the thread Software nerd supplies] 'luck' being referred to as a concept. I doubt this, and prefer to see it as a 'phenomenon'. Luck can play a powerful role in life. This should not be denied. Speaking as an experienced poker player, Luck, Chance, and Odds were a big part of my life, for many years. These are my basic observations- 'Good' Luck is no more than an APPROPRIATE SITUATION, benefitting myself . In other words, good cards, good dice ,etc., are appropriate cards; the player I beat with those cards is holding Inappropriate cards [relative to mine] and therefore has 'bad luck.' Good Luck must be recognized when it occurs, and pounced upon, to gain maximum reward. There are no patterns to luck. But the Law of Averages eventually evens out. The more often a skilfull player enters a game the greater his 'win expectancy'. So it is in life. Given the random situations we live with, where elements and people can interact in unpredictable and infinite ways, leading to coincidence, synchronicity and ( the mystics favourite) even serendipity, why should one not use the phenomenon of chance when it comes one's way? The beauty,BTW, is that life- unlike poker- is rarely a Zero Sum game. My win or success seldom means your loss and failure. This is not to detract from a person living a self-determining life; with rationality; with morality;with consciousness. In fact these (if you like) are like the honed skills of a poker player. He exposes himself to life, knowing that with perserverance , he will be ready for Luck when it comes around - as it must. A top golfer [ Gary Player ], was once told " that was a lucky shot ", by an onlooker. His reply - "Funny, the more I practise, the luckier I get !"

All responses are true enough, and I have to dig a little deeper to find my motive in posing this topic. I suppose the question could have been more interesting if it had been:' If a nation (in the future!) was populated by a majority of self-responsible Individualists, wouldn't it's leaders be far less potent and less needed? ' In fact they would be there only to SERVE the will of the people. And less to LEAD. Am I the only one here to feel discomfit at the amount of power and adulation any leader gets - whether in a benevolent demoracy, or in a malevolent dictatorship? The best, and the worst of them, I believe, went into politics firstly for the pleasure of Power, for self-aggrandisement (which is hardly rational selfishness ) and secondly because they had a "vision"for the " betterment " of their country; so there is commonality between a Thatcher and a Stalin, a Jefferson and a Mao tse tung. At this level they are all equal- the good and the evil - in wanting to "make a difference". The Leader i.m.o. who is necessary, is a Churchill, or Jefferson who comes to the fore in times of extreme crisis. The rest of the time, we can do without him.

Dunno who it was said " The man best qualified for the job (President), wouldn't want it." --- or something like that. [Reminiscent of Groucho's " I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member". ]

My meaning of 'egotism' is the conventional one [ as opposed to the Objectivist 'egoism'] which I understand as aligned with altruism in the make-up of a person who lives through , and by , others. The problem with a 'mixed society' as in a mixed economy is that these definitions become critical... the other problem is that a country's leader " can eat his cake and have it ". He (she) who would be no more than a Public Servant - the highest one - in a properly minimalist government, is lauded by the populace for being the ultimate Altruist. In this world, a President is 'given the keys to the kingdom' and assumes awesome power, as well as prestige and status. This is admittedly more of a problem in my country which is predominantly collectivist and statist, than in the U.S. It's just that I have a problem with the adulation a jumped- up civil servant receives. This seems to entrench Big Government ever deeper. The comparison Plasmatic makes between politics and soldiering is quite valid. And the same principles hold true ( I believe). If one is an unashamed Randian egoist , than one should be clear and uncontradictory about it : " I am a professional,in a job I love and value. I take pride in my expertise and in my exposure to fresh challeges. Please don't give me any of that hero- worshipping,for 'the good of my country' praise. I am in it for my own good , my gain and pleasure."

It appears to me that the only profession that , by it's very definition , requires an element of 'selflessness' ( service etc.) is politics. And the person who becomes Prime Minister, or President of a nation has to renounce nearly all of his self-interest . Which - if this were so - would lead to an interesting paradox, as it takes a massively ambitious and self-interested individual to rise so far. We, in South Africa, have just elected a new President, Jacob Zuma, who came to power on a groundswell of popular support. His personal charisma out-weighed his shady past, and one is given the impression that his lust for power and egotism are not going away soon! Personally, I don't understand the cult status any country gives it's leader. I don't want a hero ; give me a grey, incorruptible, Civil Servant, any day : Pres. Whatshisname. Since when should GOVERNMENT be glamorous?

gauri, A well put argument for self-regulation . I learned something Thanks, Tony.

Habit , custom , and routine are powerful forces when applied to the good. The first time one practises a new rational ethic it will feel odd and artificial, but keep it going consciously day after day, seeking out opportunities to test it - and it's amazing how soon it becomes embedded in one. Aristotle said : " We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act , but a habit."

I have come round to the conviction that any softening of the Objectivist meaning of 'selfish', in any debate with others ( no matter how receptive they may or may not be ), is at the very least, counter-productive. And at the most , lacking in integrity, and possibly, immoral. hunterrose's use of the word 'appease' is key here. Do I want to have a philosophy I am proud and certain of ; or do I want to compromise it's principles for the sake of all and sundry ? This is against a background ( in my early Ayn Rand years ) of doing the same as slacker00 and substituting 'RSI' for 'selfish'. On the practical basis of 'convincing' anyone , I gained nothing. On the very doubtful premise- altruism- that I should be here to preach to the world and enlighten any one , well the only people that I was and am concerned about i.e. of importance to me , could simply borrow my copy of V.O.S. and see it for themselves - like we all did. And view ' selfishness' at work in my life. I have to add a couple of riders to what I've just said: a. It could be beneficial for a new Objectivist to make that "SELFISH / R.S.I." interchange , for his OWN INTERNAL DEBATE, until he can comfortably integrate the two. And b. , I completely stand by the premise that Selfishness is a stepping-stone ( an essential one ) to the even greater Value/Virtue of mind-independent Individualism.

Grames, you write - "Branden's statement was hardly 'stunning'. More like 'obvious'". Do you mean 'obvious' in the sense of 'self-evident' ? Because on this basis, all Reality,or Truth, is obvious. There's Reality, here's a rational mind, and hey presto! , understanding emerges. So what took Humanity so long to get to this point? Thousands of years of bad- thought or no-thought, unnecessary detours, dead ends, or just re inventing the wheel. Religions rose and split and rose again; philosophies came and went ( most didn't 'went' fast enough !). Everybody wanted the "truth" - or claimed they did. We, right now, are living in a fortunate time. Because about 60 years ago a brilliant thinker identified, analysed and distilled all the evidence at hand i.e. reality, and a 'new' philosophy came into being. This is the first post- Randian generation. There were other brilliant thinkers, and they mostly got it wrong. The world will eventually wake up to the truth in Objectivism, but they're hardly rushing in at the moment. I think there are a few factors to consider,the first being that ( I have come to believe) the majority of people don't want,( fear ?) Truth. The second, that Objectivism is seen by many to be too 'simple'. How can the answer to all our questions be so easy, make it more incomprehensible, please. "I won't accept any philosophy that I can understand. Besides, I want to baffle everyone's brains or else I won't be a real 'intellectual'." There is the beauty in Objectivism. Given a great and courageous mind to lead the way , all it requires is our Reason and unflinching respect for reality. And it's so obvious - now. { Grames, I apologise. This wasn't meant to be a rant at your comment. Also, thank you, as it helped me self-clarify something I've been considering for years!}

Michael, Now you're getting to the crux of the matter, I believe! The opening sentence of 'Honoring the Self' ,by Dr. N. Branden : "Of all the judgements that we pass in life, none is as important as the one we pass on ourselves, for that judgement touches the very center of our existence ". Stunning. [You probably already know it ] Thanks, Tony

SELFISH (adj.) of the self, for the self,by the self. A.J.G. dictionary MM1X

MichaelH, Are you saying that people deserve the benefit of the doubt? Well I agree, because of the fact -and only the fact- that benevolence is a value of mine. I would rather uphold this value than slip into distrust and suspicion of the whole world, and let's face it , that's not hard. The word/concept 'judgement' deserves as much attention as 'selfishness' has been getting on this forum. Political correctness, religionism, and collectivism have damaged and hi-jacked both these terms at the expense of clarity and truth and justice in today's world. I am sick of being told " Oh,but that's being judgemental!" And having to reply "That's what I have a mind for". No one's a god, but a rationally moral, benevolently judgemental person will take into account all the facts at his disposal before making a judgement. He realises that it is the nature of many not to be consistent. ( This in itself is an indictment of those people. ) But there is a vast difference between a rare lapse in behaviour of a fully rational person; and a whimsically inconsistent " I'll be good or bad when I FEEL LIKE IT", sort. 'Benefit of the doubt' , therefore, can be a double-edged sword. I would prefer to be extra sharp in my judgement of a situation, or a person, than be too trusting, and suffer a deep wound.

Yes, got to me too. One of my first thoughts was thank god that she's not alive to see this. Next thought , now we're gong to need her more than ever.

Phi, Nicely rounded up..... ( "Judge, and prepare to be judged".)

Yes Zip, quite true, but that's why I wrote " by contrast". But aren't you making an assumption here that just because the ordnance of war has so vastly evolved, and the tech. skills of the soldier now so advanced, that human beings have somehow also got better? Can we assume that every commanding officer , who the soldier has been trained to obey and trust, is rationally objective, and has always weighed up the risk vs. the reward in a battle? The saying goes 'Those who do not know history,are condemned to repeat it' and for that reason alone cadets at West Point are still taught the ancient stategies of warfare, such as Sun Tzu's " The Art of War", or von Clausewitz's campaigns. In the main I believe, information and intelligence has become far more critical in war ,as in business, and all ranks in the military are briefed and informed far better than ever before. Independent assessment of a scenario, plus individual initiative, are encouraged. Which is the way to go.

Yes, the incredible expense and expertise that a life-affirming nation such as the U.S. goes to in order to minimise losses in battle is very uplifting. But as you say, with all the hi- tech,and air cover, the soldier on the ground will always be important,and at risk. By contrast, a poem written by the well known English war poet , S. Sassoon, writing about the trench warfare of WW 1, the massacres of soldiers, and the stupidity or callousness of their Generals: The General "Good morning,good morning",the general said When we met him last week on our way to the line. Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead, And we're cursing his Staff for incompetent swine. "He's a cheery old card", muttered Harry to Jack, As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack. ------ But he did for them both with his plan of attack.

'roo , I personally think that you are on the right track. My advice is not to just swallow everything you read as Gospel , until you've fully digested it. ( What the hell am I talking about..... digest, then swallow !? ) Anyway, I know what I mean. Not everyone is comfortable about the word/concept of 'selfish' at first. I did the same as you by replacing it with 'rational self interest' for a long time- in my debates with others, and for my own internal debates. Now I can live with just 'selfish'. You have obviously recognised that words are the beginning of concepts, and must be defined accurately. So go back to that earlier,archaic, definition that I posted of - 'concern with oneself'. No more, no less. Then take note of the Latin root of altruism- 'alter' = other. These definitions,' The Virtue of Selfishness,' and your own mind, are all you need to move ahead. Oh yes, and THROW AWAY THOSE DAMNED DICTIONARIES !!! Tony

A thought- provoking,well reasoned thread,from all parties. I too, have wondered if anyone ever - michievously- asked Ayn Rand about the potential altruism in publishing her books and essays for the benefit of others, and what she would have said. Two answers spring to mind. One is the producer/trader principle that we know so well in her writing on Capitalism; value put out, for value received. [ Very simply, one uses one's best skill and mind to earn a living]. The beneficiaries , as with say, a business man providing employment for 100's , are of secondary,or tertiary concern, to that producer. Second, whether one is a scientist, a philosopher, or an artist , one's greatest quest is Truth. The tiny number of individuals we owe a debt to for what our lives are today and will be tomorrow, did not work,slave,suffer for those unborn generations. They did it for themselves,for their hunger for truth. Surely Rand's deepest driving force came from this?? Ayn Rand put it in perspective with the words :" I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism,but of egoism;and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism,but of reason ". And the purpose of reason? To discover Reality , ie the Truth. BTW, this quote ( which was new to me, until someone posted it here on O.O.) has a secondary value inherent in it: it displays Rand's hierarchical thinking. Something I think not emphasised enough amongst her admirers. Some concepts are more important than others, this value or virtue has higher worth than that one. AND they all interlock , seamlessly, with the one above or below them. Which is how I came to understand ' selfishness '. Ayn Rand overturned all previous modes of thought. The pyramid which started with God at the top, others - the tribe, society, the Planet - next, and guess who? at the very bottom, was changed forever by that simple word 'egoism',as she honoured it. Then one is free to go and construct one's own pyramid,with one's own rational values , of who occupies high position, and who slightly lower position, but with one's Self firmly at the top. Non- Objectivists constantly get stuck on the virtue of selfishness,till one feels like saying to them " Get past it, see the bigger picture ! This is just a step towards something greater- individualism, independence of mind, and freedom !"

Without a doubt , the "moral" high ground has been held for too long by those extolling selflessness. The mental and emotional gymnastics that the human race has put itself through for a few thousand years,in trying to live up to some primitive , tribal, social, and religious "ideal", is truly mind-blowing. One can almost ( almost!) feel compassion for the millions who tortured themselves with guilt, for never attaining that "ideal". There was never anyone to say to them ------ 'Just Shrug...' BTW, slacker00, you sure got a stack of dictionaries !! It's amazing how that definition has mutated over time. When I looked up 'selfish'in I think an ancient Oxford English once, all it said was ' concern with oneself'. Clean and neutral. And that's the one I've always used. Since when have even our dictionaries sunk so low into politically correct, subjective moralising ? Is nothing sacred?

I agree my 'living death' was fanciful and metaphorical. Happily, you ( slacker00 ) have probably never experienced such a condition of unconsciousness; that inability to focus on reality. But because something is inimical to Man's life , doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just look around you, observe others' actions and 'thinking,' and you will have to conclude that there are not many like you. This,too,is reality,and we Objectivists have to take it into account. Good old Albert is still full of surprises, isn't he ?!! [another case of the living dead ? :>) Thanks, Tony

Isn't a numbed, semi-conscious life also a kind of death ? Yes, I reckon " evasion " says it all . Quote from Albert Einstein : Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts. Living death, I suppose.

One thing that has struck me about the U.S. military in my reading over the years, is that in the main their Generals,Admirals etc. have been highly averse to squandering the lives of their soldiers. Well, after the Civil War anyway! They definitely weren't treated as cannon fodder as much as ,say the Brits have been. Also, the U.S.Army was the first-probably the only- to pass a law making it OK for a soldier to disobey a superiors order, IF the soldier felt the order was immoral. This was in response to an atrocity commited in Vietnam. Can anyone tell me if that law is still in place? Ayn Rand wrote,spoke ( can't recall the source ) about the need for a standing,professional Army- well trained,paid and motivated- during the Vietnam war , in opposition to conscription. So a well paid, highly trained career soldier who is 'serving' his self interest,as well as his country, at reduced risk of his life - well that's the way it should be. Altruism? I don't think so. Damn ,I'd enlist myself , if I were an American.

I'm a South African, by way of the ex Rhodesia's - Zimbabwe , Zambia, where I was born. Dad was a Brit , met Mum in Mandate Palestine during the war ( that's WW2 for you youngsters ), so that makes me half Israeli. Tony

On the subject of mind-emotion dichotomy, my personal belief is that few people have the power of mind and vast rationality of an Ayn Rand to quickly and seamlessly integrate and consolidate the two. Look at her brilliant rebuttal of Pascal's " The heart has its reasons which the head does not know". Rand's response: " The head has its reasons which the heart must learn to know ". And even she, it seems with the advantage of hindsight, made some errors in this regard. I , for one,spent years fully absorbing into my own psyche such concepts as "Man is a being of self made soul ". The breathtaking simplicity and clarity of such thought resounds with self evident truth. BUT, as most of us know by now, Objectivism isn't for wimps. It is not an easy grab-bag of instant 'salvation'. It requires mental and emotional maturity. It needs constant introspection and self-analysis, balanced with observation of the outer world. It demands, above all, an individuated, independent, mind. And it takes time. Then can follow that stage [ which I think is the ultimate that man or woman can aspire to] of mind,emotion,body integration. {The real human spirit,perhaps?} The years I spent on this journey would have been drastically shortened, if I had discovered Dr Branden's works on self esteem earlier than I did. Notwithstanding that rather strange and unexplained comment he made quoting the Talmud,posted by Ramesh, the man's thinking stands for itself. I understand too well why he was concerned about alienation and repression. So, yes, Melchior, N.B.'s books are invaluable. I have a view on Objectivism I'd like to share - just excuse my slight pomposity! Ayn Rand showed me the rock to stand on to see the World ; Nathaniel Branden helped me to build the rock within my Self. Tony