hernan
-
Posts
521 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hernan
-
-
"Then there was another section of books. Books on free enterprise economics, such as Economics in One Lesson. Roy had tried many times to get him to read it. And, as Michael had always suspected, there was Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."
http://www.conquistador.org/publication?publicationEntityId=152223921604
-
SONY cannot respond militarily. I think they should have released the movie though, even if it were a severely limited release and mostly unattended.
Of course SONY, along with every other company, ought to get more serious about cyber attacks... which means understanding the nature of their vulnerabilities and acting to fix them.
Sony could pay hackers to counterattack or something like that.
But it's not clear to me that Sony should ignore the threat anymore than it might ignore taxation or regulation. If Japan had censored the movie formally would you argue that they should release it anyway?
-
Why should the US government respond? Why not Japan or the UN?
More importantly, how ought Sony respond?
-
Is there an important philosphical difference between Islamic or NK hackers exercising a veto over movie production and the regulations and taxes from elected governments?
One obvious difference is that there is known formal process for obtaining permission from governments whereas the actions of ISIS and NK are something that you just have to hope you don't provoke. On the other hand, given the uneven and politizied application of law, it's not always obvious when you are subject to regulation and when not.
Is it rational for movie studios to seek ISIS or NK permission to produce movies that might offend them as they might apply for a license from the government?
-
Let's go with that analogy for a moment. Suppose having kids is like owning a car.
Now compare two contexts:
A) Living in the city with subways and busses, short commutes, and expensive parking, and
Living in the suburbs with no public transportation, long commutes, and free parking.Seems pretty obvious that people in situation A would value car ownership less than those in situation B entirely apart from any hierarchy of values. There is an objective difference in owning a car in each situation.
This comparison, though, is not exactly analogous to having children, though.
Consider another comparison:
C) Cars are a shared resource (i.e. communism).
D) Cars are private property (i.e. capitalism).
In context C you'd be an idiot to buy and maintain a car since anyone can take it at anytime and you can claim any other car. But you know where that will lead. That's the short term, rational choice. But you can see that, longer term, C is not a stable situation.
-
"Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a belief that promotes human reproduction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism
What is the Objectivist take on this?
One the one hand, you could do a cost-benefit analysis to determine the optimal number of children that would provide happiness and fulfillment.
On the other hand, it seems like a pretty basic application of the virtue of productivity.
On the other hand, the modern welfare state has pretty much rendered children a tragedy of the commons. (Taxes support the aged.)
What are your thoughts.
-
One way to look at it is to ask: what is my return on investment for my involvement in politics? It's certainly hard to see that coming out positive for the most politically active among us. What did you get for that donation exactly? And some people are emotionally devastated when their faction fails regardless of the consequences otherwise.
But there is another way to look at it: politics as entertainment or as charity.
As entertainment, it's certainly competitive with Kim Kardashian.
As charity, there is also some reasonableness to it. For most activities, such as voting, the costs are negligible. Giving a small donation to a candidate you like or a political organization you think is doing good is emotionally rewarding.
-
So, if you like your politics, you can keep your politics. I’m not trying to take it away from you. I’m just saying that I wish good people wouldn’t pour their time and energy down that particular drain—I don’t think it benefits them.
Why I Stopped Spending My Time on Politics… And Why I Think You Should Too
Discuss.
-
The following is a time-line of what Rand thought were virtues, the dated ones from Journals of Ayn Rand.
September 18, 1943: Per the editor she presents independence as a primary virtue, but later identifies independence as derivative, an aspect of the primary virtue of rationality.
September 29, 1943: She names integrity as the first, greatest, and noblest virtue. She also writes about the virtues of courage, honesty, sense of honor (a selfish virtue by definition), self-confidence, strength (of character, will, and wisdom). All these virtues are contained in, enhanced by, based upon the fundamental virtue of self-respect.
July 19, 1945: Her chief virtues: self-reverence, self-sufficiency, worship of the ideal.
July 29, 1953: The virtues of the Life Morality - thinking (rationality), independence, honesty, purposefulness, happiness, self-esteem.
Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged: Adds integrity and justice to the July 29, 1953 list. Happiness is dropped. Pride replaces self-esteem. Productivity replaces purposefulness.
This indicatesthat she came late to the idea of productivity. Very interesting.
I did manage to get a discussion on the virtue of productivity here:
-
I think Ayn Rand was a victim of her own genius when it came to introducing and conveying her ideas to the "normal" populace. She maybe didn't need some of the mental coaxing that most others need.
I love and appreciate her precise form of communicating. But most, it seems, need a lot of chocolate syrup mixed in there to even approach the medicine from 10 feet back.
There is defintely something to this. Although I don't think it's the prevaling motivation for hatred, it certainly applies to professional philosophers and others who hold themselves up as gatekeepers of what is legitimate for the public to discuss and know.
-
Alright, that's a good overview. You may admit though that the modern aspects we face of egalitarianism, are psychological, moral and political, unlike traditional "caste and class" in many ways. That used to be a collectivist elitism based on ethnicity and birth-status, now we are seeing the same poison, collectivism, being diagnosed to 'cure' elitism!
"Equality" is a subjectivist falsehood, I'd guess with its roots in religion and the Soul, carried over into secular humanism, I think.
An individual only has to stop and think of the 4+ billion adults in the world, each of whom can do a huge variety of things better than he, has more or less energy and creativity, or a better or worse character - etc, etc -- and all that, at varying periods in his and their lives. It can't compute or compare.
But sure, equality is an unquestionable 'article of faith' to whomever one debates with today. Opposing it like this will make one unpopular in many quarters- but you never know - will get some people reviewing their premises.
All true, but I think the point is that egalitarians view egalitarian as the historical solution to class and caste (not to mention racism), and anything that threatens egalitarianism as the same as, or as bad as, those. For many income or asset inequality is as bad as a caste system, mobility notwithstanding.
Of course, they cannot defend egalitarianism objectively. Instead, they defend it tribally. If you are not an egalitarian you are an outsider, you are a danger to the tribe. You are a legitimate target of hate.
-
She completely rejects the implicitly underlying accepted morality and proposes almost the opposite. That rustles feathers. She is also misrepresented in popular culture which is where most people are getting their information about her.
What is interesing about this is that she is equally hated by those who are otherwise at each others' throats. (I think the misrepresentation is, first, and effect and not an explanation. People misrepresent that which they hate. The hate comes first at least for the intellectuals who do the original study.)
-
In rebuttal of your Prez, those younger Objectivists are certainly going to find that it's when they're older that they need the philosophy most of all.
I agree also with Jaskn, that Objectivism is all that stands in opposition to egalitarianism, the explicit consequence of the altruism-collectivism of our times.
Who, after all, is "equal" to whom? By what standards, which qualities: wealth - character - effort? How is it -momentarily- achieved except by guilt and force? I can testify that as far as egalitarianism won't ultimately succeed, to merely attempt it brings everyone to the lowest level, in mutually common contempt and distrust.
This is an interesting point. I do often argue agains egalitarianism and I'm sure you can imagine the squeling this induces.
But it is probably more accurate to say that Objectivism is the last remaining opposition to egalitarianism. If you go back in history you will find plenty of non-egalitarian worldviews including, most obiously, caste and class systems. In their view, Objectivists are just holdouts gainst modernity or, worse, counterrevolutionaries trying to turn back the clock.
Note also that eglitarianism is more general than collectivism though, in practice, it seeme the former always tends toward the later.
-
One thing I have noticed is that Objectivists seem much more interested in Rand's ideas on rationality and politics. There is not a whole lot of discussion of the virtue of productivity, although it is essential to her philosophy and arguably critical to her fiction.
Why is that?
-
I haven't encountered that degree of animosity towards her. What I have heard expressed most often by those who have read (or tried to read Atlas Shrugged) is that her philosophy is bleak. Like you, I often will engage in discussing those aspects of her work that are being criticized in order to understand what is so offensive to them. Here is some of what I've encountered:
1) Rejection of the idea that those in need are moochers/leaches/parasites.
2) Rejection of the apparent promotion of "Enron" types.
3) Rejection of an unnecessarily antagonistic view of religion and the values it promotes.
A good list.
On the upside, those who get through Atlas Shrugged usually recognize and appreciate the warnings against the use of government to force people to participate in activities they don't agree with, and the overregulation of industries they depend on for work.
One interesting aspect to me is that those who really enjoy her work tend to be younger than those, like myself, who are older. Obama's dismissive comment that Objectivism is for teens who are feeling misunderstood is typical of the kind of criticism I've encountered.
It's hard for me to tell if this is a serious criticism or a thinly veiled putdown.
-
My family/friends who don't like Rand seem to think she is *against* emotions, not just very pro-reason.
Yes, the "Randroid" thing. I've encountered this in another form: people get very upset at my confidence in the truth of my own beliefs. This rubs against the prevailing realtivist view. So I'm not so much accused of being against emotions as seeming arrogant for not relying upon them.
-
The basic reason I've concluded as of late seems to stem from egalitarianism and plain old emotionalism.
I agree on egalitarianism, that is a strong current in modern culture. But emotionalism is usually rooted in something. People are certainly reacting emotionally to Rand but it's too consistent to be random. And I don't think everyone is so obsessed with egalitarianism though most intellectuals are.
-
I'm looking for feedback both on the particular story and on the general format.
Thanks in advance.
-
The vitriol that I encounter bogels the mind. People who are otherwise pretty level headed will straight up say: "I hate Ayn Rand."
While I do not consider myself an Objectivist I am always happy to defend Ayn Rand against the most common objections. But rarely do I get a serious debate. The hatred of Rand seems almost visceral.
Why? What it is about Rand that so offends? What makes her taboo among intellectuals?
I'll offer what I suspect is a partial answer: There is a long tradition, tracing back at least to Plato, that practical concerns are vulgar and unworthy of serious thought and discussion. Rand stood that on its head validating the pragmatic concerns of ordinary life over the moral preening of those who claim a higher calling. Perhaps that is unforgivable.
What is your assessment? What explanations have you heard for hatred of Ayn Rand?
-
Rand tends to take a naturalist/biologist approach even if not so explicitly. Productiveness thus is not seen as a duty-driven imposition, but as something natural, and purpose is tied into happiness. I think a lot of other people -- at least modern psychologists and preachers -- also see the link between purpose and fulfillment/happiness.
Preacher Rick Warren uses the idea of being "purpose-driven" as a central theme. With a little creativity, a believer can choose purposes that are extremely productive and fulfilling. While an Objectivist might critique the mystical aspects, the altruistic aspects, or using the Bible as an authority, the actual outcomes might be very good.
I haven't read enough philosophy to know how many others took a similar approach, but in Rand I see a scientist looking at human beings like an outside observer and asking: why do they act this way? what makes them happy? what sad? Then, finding the common and fundamental threads that integrate the findings.
Psychologically, people have a desperate need for purpose and for identity. One can observe a sense of purpose making kids happy at a very young age. One can see how so many people enjoy the pursuit of purposes that are not facially productive -- e.g. achieving some goal in a video game. One can even look at young men joining violent jihadi movements and spot the need for purpose and identity. It's a good guess that our psychology evolved to fulfill a rational life-serving (species-serving) purpose. So, deep, universal psychological needs are windows to our nature. The central virtues of Purpose tied to Productivity and Self-Esteem tied to Pride are what one arrives at. [Reason/Rationality are even more fundamental.]I rather like Rand's naturalist approach tough I am not as allergic to religion as she was. I do agree that she was onto something more than mere economic productivity. She did talk about purpose in much the same was as you describe. But my impression is that theologians, like philosophers, tend to regard economic concerns as vulgar and, so, devalue them whereas Rand's concept of productivity was both grand and vulgar at the same time. Men are productive both to feed themselves and to create grand projects such as the Hoover dam or product great works of art.
I posted the question to Philosophy Forums and got a bit of a discussion there:
-
Marx criticized the Western Philosophical tradition for ignoring human labor and productivity. His rather picky materialism emphasized the active over the contemplative, performing a rather efficient archaeology of knowledge that extended back to classical Greece.
In this regard, his reading of Aristotle tried to demonstrate a sort of feedback loop between knowledge and doing--The 'Praxis-- that he found in The Metaphysics. Much of what we call 'theory is reflection upon the causal properties of what we just created.
Here, Aristotle himself has the last word: the good life is built upon a certain modicum of leisure time that's created by productivity.
Going backwards a bit from Marx, we find Spinoza, the Philosopher Prince of 'doing' . For example, against Descartes, he argued that thought is what the can the body can do with respect to the organ that produces 'thought'.
Kant, as well, spoke of morality as basically a practical activity. he also wrote that the intellectual machinery that one brings into a judgment (verstehen) is somewhat determined by one's experience in matters of labor.
Andie
Those are great pointers, thank you. I will research these. I agree that pragmatism is pretty close to productivity. But it still seems to me that Rand had a pretty unique grasp on this most comparable only to non-philosophers (e.g. industry titans who don't apologize for their great accomplishments).
-
Do you mean some philosopher who put productiveness as a virtue? If so, some variants of Buddhism, and Hinduism at a certain stage of its evolution do laud work and the workman. Modern interpretations will sometimes speak of the Zen of workmanship where to live is to be immersed in one's art, constantly improving and being almost one with one's work. Typically, these philosophies do not give productive work top position, which they reserve for hermit-like renunciation. However, for the rest of us, we're told to seek fulfillment in work.
Still, the conception is quite different from Rand's: and definitely not selfish and often not even utilitarian, but almost fatalistic and dutiful without knowable purpose. "Let the work itself be thy charge, but never the fruit (of work)" (from Davies' translation of the Bhagvad Gita)
That's a great distinction. I do like the eastern tradition of workmanship but it is more craft ritual than genuine productiveness.
-
I have a question now:
I've been researching virtues and Rand obviously borrows a lot from Aristotle and other ancients (she also mentions St. Thomas somewhere).
Her philosophy is unique in two major respects: 1) the central and explicit role of selfishness (which she defines as "concern with one's own interests") and 2) productivity.
She is generally given credit (and criticism) for #1 but #2 is hardly discussed. Yet it is at least as interesting.
The only other thinker (like Rand, not a "philosopher" by profession) I've found who included something like that on his list of virtues was Benjamin Franklin (his term was "industriousness"). By extension, we might include the "protestant work ethic". But this is not, generally speaking, a popular virtue among professional philosophers before or since.
Am I right or am I overlooking anyone?
-
It's interesting that, aside from the book title, we don't find Rand calling selfishness a virtue.
Free Objectivist Novelettes
in Literature
Posted · Edited by hernan
I now have five completed Objectivist(ish) novelettes available for free download here: www.conquistador.org. (You can also purchase print copies for $5 each.)
I am looking for feedback on them and so welcome your opinion.