Harald

Hi "fatdog", I reply because I think your initial reaction was absolutely right, and in total agreement with a rational philosophy. I cannot find words for that sisters ungracious and manipulative way of using her power, "upper hand", to "help" her brother. It's almost as if she demands he should subject his soul in return for her material help. Had she demanded - or better yet, reasonably argued - that he get into a diet and training program, then I could have understood her, and I think your brother would have too. But demanding religious service attendance 4 times a week in return for her doing what she herself should deem a religious duty to do (leaving aside that there is no such thing as religious duty)? Hypocrisy: yes. Manipulative: yes. Harmful to her brothers self-esteem because it demands subjection: yes. Her gracious helper gave her a free loan, no strings attached, and when the table gets turned she sets those demands for helping him! How nice. These demands are irrational and she is morally wrong to set them. She has a _legal_ right to set them - of course! - but she is morally wrong do to so. She doesn't really seem to be a thankful decent person (judging from this particular story) and if I were the brother I would have cried for the sister I had lost and tried to get help from a _real_ friend. Where is her compassion? Her love for her brother. Her thankfulness for the help she received when in need? I see none. She seems cold. I do not envy you the spectacle of witnessing this very ugly trait of your sisters soul revealed so unpleasantly. Your "gut" reaction was right: this is "insane".

Right, reading Atlas first then the formal non-fiction and systematic presentation after that, makes sense. Also, the people at ARI has given this some thought and provided a suggested reading list, see www.aynrand.org Good reading, I sure enjoyed reading Atlas the first time and hoope you will too. All the best, Harald

Hi Bobby, all your questions and all the issues you raise have been adressed by professional Objectivist philosophers. The best among them is Dr. Leonard Peikoff. His book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is a systematic presentation of the philosophy this forum was created to discuss. It is difficult to discuss these ideas with someone who has next to no knowledge of what these ideas are (I didn't either before I actually read the books by Ayn Rand or Peikoff). So I suggest to you that you pick it up from amazon for a mere 13 USD, or used for 6 USD, please see: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books Dr. Peikoff has devoted his whole life to learning the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and Ayn Rand was also his teacher and mentor. This is now available for 6 USD - and your own effort in reading the book. You seem to be genuinly interested in philosophy and Objectivism, so I suggest you buy and read the book. Ask yourself: What is your time worth? You can spend 1 year on this discussion forum trying to learn what we non-prosessional hobby-philosophers think about the various aspects of Objectivism, and still not learn as much as you could by reading this one book for say, one week. It is understanding and knowledge I gather you seek, not discussion for the sake of discussion. So, why not save your valuable time and go directly to the source? and avoid unnecessary confusions discussing with other non-professionals? It is difficult enough for us students of Objectivism to discuss ideas with each other, but at least we have, or some have, read the works that we talk about. But discussing them with someone who has not read them, is next to impossible, at least for me. Then, later on we can talk about the nature of reason and emotion, their relationship and role in cognition (perhaps after you read the section on "Emotions as a Product of Ideas", in the chapter on "Reason" in the book referred to above?). You will be surprised at the view Objectivism has on reason and emotion and I think you will be amply rewarded in reading this book. I know I was.

Dear "Curious Student", I wish I had discovered Ayn Rands work at such an early time in my life! As for your questions and wish to learn more about Objectivism, I do think you should take a look at the website of The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). The ARI promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand and their site www.aynrand.org has a wealth of information that should be of value to you. For instance, at http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...vism_audiovideo there are two introductory lectures available for free on line by professional Objectivist philosophers. One is by the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute and Ayn Rands best pupil and intellectual heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff (75 min.), the other is by Dr Gary Hull (5 hours). You can also, for free, get an information packet on Objectivism by filling out the following form here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=request_info ARI has also prepared a suggested reading list, here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ctivism_sugread Perhaps also ARI's "voluntarism" program may be of interest to you? Check it out on their pages. The ARI also has a really outstanding educational program you might be interested in (I have taken their undergraduate courses and can recommend it with all my heart, I've never had such good teachers in my life, and I'm a graduate student in history of philosophy): http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...education_index I wish you good luck in your studies! Best regards, Harald

Bobby66, I think you might be smitten with utilitarianism - a theory totally at odds with Objectivism or any theory of individual rights. This theory (utilitarianism) is so all pervasive in political philosophy and our modern way of thinking that it is not so easy to detect. The signature quote you enclose in every one of your posts is from the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham - in the history of political philosophy Bentham is an arch enemy of individual rights. It was he who called Locke's theory of individual rights "Nonsense on Stilts" and it was he who lead the main initial attack on individual rights. As you may see, if you study your signature quote, Bentham bases his whole idea of morality - and so his political morality - on the hedonistic pleasure-pain mechanism (hedonism stems from the Epicureans). He says that all of man's thoughts and actions are basically stemming from "two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure" (a view we now see in the modern "emotivism" doctrine). Reason, for instance in the form of a morality upholding man's rights, is for him really just rationalized emotion (and so can hold no more weight than other "thoughts" or "notions"). For him reason is not king but "a slave of the passions" (Hume's formulation but it holds for Bentham too). If you read Hobbes Leviathan, that disastrously influential tract defending authoritarianism, you will see the same ideas at work in Hobbes view on man (and hence his view of morality and political philosophy). This view of reason has had disastrous effects. If you effectively dispense with reason you are inviting disaster, and certainly you cannot defend liberty if you view man as basically a beast driven by his passions (would you open the door to the lion gates?). After Bentham came JS Mill and his rule utilitarianism (a part of which I recognize in your posts), but Mills more sophisticated utilitarianism still suffers from the same problems as Bentham's. The theory of utilitarianism is incompatible with individual rights and has been picked apart so many times by political philosophers, Ayn Rand included, that I refer you to those critiques for a more in-depth understanding of the weakness of this theory. Suffice it to point out that the theory lacks any correct understanding of human nature, reason, knowledge, morality (it preaches self-sacrifice), standard of values. Utilitarianism leads to authoritarianism and the violation of rights and is collectivist in nature ("greatest happiness for the greatest number", being its stale dead-end mantra).

My pleasure, I find this a fascinating topic. In the foreword of OP Dr. Peikoff mentions the "debris of history" which has to be uncovered before we can start to actually learn from history. He sure was and is right and your enterprise is such an important one! By the way, it's been briefly touched upon already, this Revisionism in history is not particular to American history as you may well know. You will see the same Revisionism in the study of for instance Locke by modern Locke scholars (Bassini, ref my link above, also mentions this). Political Locke is actually made out to be a majority rule authoritarian (Kendall), a "Hobbes in Sheep's clothing" (Strauss, MacPherson), a religious dogmatic authoritarian (Dunn) or a Kantian social democrat (A.J. Simmons) by modern scholars. And that's just mentioning a few interpretations of Locke. In fact the whole Enlightenment and it's emphasis on reason is under attack (Peter Gay has written some good pieces on this). I don't even want to go into the Middle Ages (which apperently cannot really be separated from the mystical Renaissance, or so the many scholars say). It's interesting and fascinating to see how the values and philosophy of historians shape their historiography and view of history. I think Objectivism is an essential tool to analyze this field. A lot of good work needs to be done here!

AA, this academic article ("Life, Liberty, and...: Jefferson on Property Rights" by Luigi Marco Bassani) addresses your questions (historiography on the Constitution etc): http://www.vonmises.org/journals/jls/18_1/18_1_2.pdf You might also want to take a look at Michael P. Zuckert's "National Rights and the New Republicanism" (Princeton University Press).

AA, have you checked out the lectures by Ridpath on www.aynrandbookstore.com ? Also, C. Bradley Thompson's "John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty" should be of interest.

Hi Bobby66, you ask about the justification of rights, specifically the right to life. I take it that you are not acquainted with Ayn Rands philosophical system (you read on Capmag we were for rights...). Ayn Rand did not originate the idea of individual rights (of which the right to life is the fundamental right). That was done by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Locke had both a dogmatic religious view on rights (ref. his "workmanship"-argument in the 2nd Tr.) and a secular reasonable justification, but it was the religious justification of rights that historically survived. Now, Locke influenced the Founding Fathers (especially Jefferson), as you perhaps know. Especially ominous was the notion manifested that "we take these rights to be self evident" and given to us by a God. Now, today Locke has been discarded by many scholars as in fact being against individual rights, but a reading first-hand of the 2nd Tr. will tell you that this is a false view. Also, the religious component in Locke - overemphasized in his interpreters I think - lead to the disrepute of individual rights, because they saw his theory as tainted (which it was) with religious unscientific rationalizations. Your notion that individual rights are not grounded in anything but a root choice, ungrounded in reason, is the watered-out argument of those who historically opposed individual rights in their fight for collectivism (a motive I do not think you have). Now, what Ayn Rand does is to provide a whole rational secular philosophic system that supports individual rights without the flaws this theory historically suffered from. You see, from history we can draw the conclusion that a political theory needs such a justification if it shall survive the test of time and the attacks from its intellectual enemies. Ayn Rand brilliantly defends these rights I think, and she ads new insights specifically of what in fact rights are. Just to mention one unique contribution to the defense of rights contributed by Ayn Rand. Locke speaks throughout his 2nd Treatise of how destructive force is, but to my knowledge Ayn Rand is the only one who identifies and emphasizes that the initiation of force, or threat thereof, is the only means by which rights can be violated. But to really appreciate Ayn Rands defense of individual rights you have to look to the philosophic theory on which it rests. It rest on an ethic of rational self-interest, of an identification of man as a volitional rational animal with reason as his only means of knowledge and survival. In short, all your questions on what does rights depend on (or how can man live a rational life in society) rest on the other more fundamental (ethics, epistemology, metaphysics/ontology) branches of philosophy. And by the way, the notion that rights are axioms chosen by whim is the libertarian view of rights, which leaves rights totally undefended and floating in the air without any justification at all. We are not libertarians and libertarians have nothing to do with Ayn Rands philosophy. She herself did everything in her power to distance herself from these subjectivist whim-whorshipping (her own words) "hippies of the right".

My two cents. I had to read Foucault six years ago, specifically I had to read his essay "The Order of the Discourse" (my translation from memory). I began reading the piece and just could not understand what he was talking about. At all. He just seemed to be rambling on incoherently and I couldn't grasp what he was trying to get at. His whole manner of writing was a physically painful assault on my psycho-epistemology and crow. So I threw the essay away in disgust. Later on I picked it up after I'd had one to beer too many, and then it all made sense(!). The whole essay was one big moaning about how his little mind felt alienated from the world, how words always seemed to escape him, how he couldn't express himself without being misunderstood, how everything at root really is incomprehensible etc etc ad nauseam. Anyway, W.T. Jones, in his History of Philosophy, has an interesting comparison between Nietzsche and Foucault. He says that both N. and F. had discovered the great metaphysical "hole" of the universe. Nietzsche delights in his discovery and considers it liberating; he dances around the hole, the metaphysical abyss, in joyous laughter. F. on his side stands transfixed and stares down the abyss of meaninglessness, trembling, crying and whining.

Nick, I think the doctrine that is confusing you is the doctrine of psychological egoism. This doctrine states that since everyone does what they want - since everyone must metaphysically act on their _own_ motivation (or "inclination","drive"), then it follows that their act is selfish. This "ethical" theory (it's not really a ethical theory at all but a metaaphysical theory of man's nature, more later) then says that since Mother Theresa acts on her own motivation she is then also an egoist. Ayn Rand, since her actions flowed from her _own_ motivation, must also be an egoist. And ditto a drug addict: when he inserts the needle into his own veins and shoots up for a few hours of escape from reality; he too does this because he is acting on his _own_ motivation (hence he is "selfish"). Bill Gates and Adolf Hitler must by the same reasoning also be considered selfish because they too act(ed) on their _own_ motivation (s). Now, note that according to the theory of psychological egoism it is impossible to differentiate morally between a heroine-slave, Mother Theresa, Bill Gates, Adolph Hitler and Ayn Rand. Which is a bit odd. My thinking is that this very widespread theory ignores the fact that people can _think rationally_ and _choose_ their actions accordingly. It also clearly denies the fact that people really do things which hurt themselves, even by their own standards: you want to paint your room but do not bother to read the warning signs on the paint-bucket stating that it is toxic and will hurt you if you do not wear a protection mask. Clearly, hurting and poisoning yourself cannot be selfish or egoistic; yet this is exactly what the theory of psychological egoism implies. In fact, psychological egoism is not an ethical theory at all; it does not aim to guide man's actions but tries (and fails) to describe why man does act as he does. Psychological egoism is a metaphysical theory which states that man has no choice in regard to his actions and therefore that no ethical theory is needed to guide man at all (which doesn't stop them from advancing their ethical doctrines). This "ethical" theory is in fact an attack on ethical theory par se (including altruism and self-sacrifice), it is deterministic and denies (implicitly) man's faculty of choice. The totalitarian Thomas Hobbes's could be one example of a philosopher which uses a varaiant of psychological egoism to attack morality.

Sorry for jumping in so late in this discussion, but I have to say this: Thanks to Steven Speicher for his very interesting comments on this topic. I googled on Simas Kudirka and came upon this REPORT ON THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF SIMAS KUDIRKA — LITHUANIAN SAILOR* by Washington Post journalist Anatole Shub. The testimony is well worth reading, what a drama and what a courage Kudirka displayed under immense pressure. The link is: http://www.lituanus.org/1972/72_3_02.htm ------ Best, Harald Waage Oslo, Norway

Sorry for the late reply Burgess, I didn't see your post untill now. Thank you for your answer, I shall indeed look into Robert P. George. Your wrote: "Dr. George is pro "natural rights," a concept which I do not understand." Well, I for one don't blame your. It is the theory that rights intrinsically and mystically inhere in individuals. So I guess it cannot really be understood in the proper meaning of that term. You asked: "2. Perhaps you could briefly summarize Locke's theory. Is it defensible? Was it objective? Does it follow logically from his ethics and epistemology?" That is a very big question and I do not have the time now to answer it properly. Harry Binswanger's course on rights is the best one I've heard yet and includes a very good summary on Locke's theory of rights(Adam Mossof's course on rights is also highly recommended). [Let me come back to you with a summary of Locke's theory of rights in a later post] As to whether Locke's theory is "defensible", I will for now just say that he is very mixed. His defense of rights is partly mystic and religious, and partly objective. You pointed to the theory of natural rights as difficult to understand, and that theory in Locke is indeed hard to defend. Very briefly put, I would say that Locke's epistemology and ethics undercuts his political theory of rights. Comparing the Essay and the Second Treatise and showing how they do not compare, is also the strategy modern commentators use to discredit Locke (to a degree Locke does not deserve, in my opinion). That said, Locke is a hero and without him I doubt the US would have been created.

I'd like to recommend Terence Rattigan. A great playwriter. Just saw "The Browning Version" performed at the London Objectivist Conference, and it was great! (The Paper Tiger sells the collected plays of Rattigan - 22 plays in all I think.)

Well, the definition of psychosis is a general loss of contact with reality. The idea of "spontaeous order" arising in an anarchy through competing security agenecies, as witness Somalia, the West Bank etc. is just devoid of any referents in reality. The idea is "sick" to the core, even though you technically may, or even perhaps should, term it "arbitrary". Some ideas are just arbitrary and should be written off as such. I never said that "libertarians are psychotic" by the way, they surely are not, but the specific idea under discussion, which only a few libertarians seem to hold, is.

(Sorry, Sesklo, about the late reply. just saw your answer now). What I am trying to say is that all life -- from the simplest amobea, to plants, to insects, to animals, to rational animals -- exists because they pursue values. Values is that which give rise to the phenomena of life as such. A living entity which does not pursue values is a contradiction in terms. A metaphysical contradiction. The existence of Life is genetically dependent on Values. You seem to have a much more narrow picture of what values are than does Ayn Rand (with whom I agree with on this - I think the identification of the link between life and values is just breathtaking as it solves so many questions in ethics). You seem to say that values are only that which is chosen. But do not, for instance, plants have values (water, sun light)? Dogs (food, drink and games)? But I think it does help us because it shows us that life qua phenomena is dependent on values and the achievement of those values. Where there are no values there is no life, and vice versa. Life and Values cannot be separated in reality and therefore cannot be sewered in philosophy or ethics. The plain descriptive fact of reality is that Life is genetically dependent on values. The one cannot exist without the other. So when Ayn Rand brings this broad idenitification of the genetic relationship between life and values into ethics, she is pointing out that Human Life qua phenomena relies on values in the same way existentially as all life does. This is why she says Life is the Standard of Value in ethics. She doesn't mean that it ought to be the standard of value, she says that it _is_ whether or not we choose to accept this fact or not.

By the way, I have of course studied the tapes of Objectivist intellectuals such as Binswanger, Ridpath and Mossoff on Locke -- all lectures superb and highly recommended!

I've been reading some secondary litterature on Locke's political philosophy (I'm writing a thesis on Locke's Right to Life, Liberty and Property in the Second Treatise). Are there anyone here that is well versed in modern Locke sholarship? It would have been interesting to know your opinion on the scholars who are ripping Locke's theory of rights apart and destroying his reputation. I'm thinking about such scholars as MacPherson, Kendall, Strauss, Dunne, Ascraft -- to mention just a few. I've found a few authors worth reading that defends his rights theory (Vaughn, Rapazinski, Zuckert), but I wonder if there are anyone else out there that is worth reading on Locke (that defends him).

Sesklo, trees, carrots, amobeas and dogs have values but they do not have the capacity of choice. How then does the concept of value apply to these "things"? If you see the answer to this question it might help you understand Ayn Rands analysis of the nature and relationship of "life" and "values".

I second that recommendation. Tore' Boeckmann's course is great and made me appreciate litterature and Ibsen even more than before. By the way, Tore will give a lecture in London this weekend on "Romanticism and Individual Values"; Scott McConnel will lecture on The Greatness of Terrence Rattigan: I soo look forward to their lectures! Other speakers will be Robert Tracinski on "To the Empire! A Vindication of British Colonialism"! John Lewis on, among other things, Ancient history and the lessons we can draw from it in our current war between Faith and Reason (see detailed lecture desription on conference website below) and the Dane Christian Beenfeldt on Alan Turing and the philosophy of AI. The one and only Professor John Ridpath will lecture on the Founding Fathers (I heard his Nietzsche talk last year, in Oslo; it was awesome, I really got inside N's twisted mind and I saw concretely why and how N. influenced modern philosophy. John Ridpathh is a truly outstanding and moving lecturer!). So if any of you on the East Coast or elsewere have the opportunity, come to London this weekend, for details see (and please forward to anyone who might be interested): http://www.icognition.biz/iCon2004/index.html Thanks, Harald

You are absolutely right, the works recommended are plays, not novels. I do not think he wrote any novels at all, none that I know of.

Regarding labelling Eddie Willers as a "second hander". I find this just incredible. Eddie is no Peter Keating who sees the world through the eyes of "the significant others", he is a man who thinks independently and is focused on reality. I don't have the exact quote (I'll look it up for later), but Hank Reardon says something to the effect, that "look Eddie you have the makings of a great/good businessman in you" -- and Hank means it. So I also disagree with those who see Eddie Willers as a common man, if one by common man means the statistical average. Eddie is, if we look around us today, an exceptional man morally (he is morally perfect!) and he is of above average in ability. He would have made a million bucks a year today in business, or so I think to myself. Eddie, however is no "genius" or man of exeptional ability, so he can never be a "Dagny", "Hank" or "John Galt". Those who imply that Eddie is common because he chose not to excell miss the mark entirely, I think (and please remember that Eddie did not have the oportunity to read AS). Eddie knows his limitations and this is good for him. Eddie knows he is no Jonathan Seagull who can just choose the become exceptional by entering a kantian universe where he can cross the "restrictions" of his own nature. The tragedy of Eddie as I see it lies in the wrong ideas he accepts -- which would have driven Dagny to hell too had she not seen her error - and how this logically must drive him to share the destiny of the world around him.

A classic not mentioned is Henrik Ibsen, a novelist Ayn Rand herself enjoyed. I especially recommend his "The Lady from the Sea" and "An Enemy of the People".

I think there is something funny and profoundly psychotic in the libertarian notion of anarchy creating "spontanous order" (via the free market's "competing protection agencies"). Have these guys ever taken a look at Somalia or the West Bank?

F*ckCommunism, wrote: I don't know your mother and cannot pass judgement on her, but she seems to have done a good job on her son, so she can't be that bad, eh? Seriously though, be cautious about judging her as an advocate of an evil idea. For one she probably does not know the idea of sacrifice as a moral principle (very few do), any lip service she pays it probably is just that. Is she very intellectual? Does she condem you for looking after your own rational interests? If not, she is not a moral crusader for sacrifice. And have you thought about what rational interests she might have in her charity work? Maybe it puts her in contact with interesting people? she would never meet otherwise? Maybe it gives her a sense of efficacy? Maybe she just delights in "making things right"? or being together with friends. There could be a hundred reasons she might enjoy her "work" here that is not so easy to detect. Don't fall for the urge to judge her out of your loyalty to Ayn Rand. You don't seem to have that urge, but the seeming paradox of your mother does seem to bother you (she is good and yet an "altruist"). I write this because I recongize myself in your relationship with your mother, you, so to speak, hit close to home. Altruism – that one has a duty to sacrifice ones values to others - is a contradictory idea (which your first hand observations illustrate). Consistently practiced altruism would kill you of in a very short time. Altruism forbids selfish action if that action could serve as a sacrifice to others. Altruism is not the same as “being kind” or “helping others”. You can be kind and help others for perfectly rational selfish reasons. The “meaning of words” do not “change through general use”, not if the words and concepts are properly made and refer to objective facts in reality (see Ayn Rand theory of concept formation in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). But that aside; OK. Let’s grant you your wish! "Altruism" is now "charity"; the original and true meaning of altruism (as defined above) is also altruism. The concept is now “wider” because it includes “charity” and “helping others” in the same concept as “sacrificing to others”. Now, since rational egoists – for instance me writing to you in order to practice writing and to defend an important moral principle - also can be “kind” and “helping”, and give to charity (ARI), we have to also include rational egoism in some variants in the concept of “altruism”. After all, helping or being kind is being altruistic. Right? Now, do you see any problems with widening the definition of altruism? (BTW, this package-dealing of the “altruism” concept will spread confusion as to the meaning of its exact nature, to the benefit of those who want to push this poison on others). We need to be able to isolate the moral idea that man has a duty to sacrifice his values to others from the non-fundamental of “being kind” or “helping is good”, or “you can help for selfish reasons”. The “being kind” and “helping others” ideas are used as guise for a much more profound and fundamental idea that says individual man has no right to ANY of his values. And this idea is no trivia bit of information or rule to be passed by lightly. Ayn Rand is not out to attack the charity housewife, her kindness or charity; she is out to identify a momentous moral idea which has monopolized the science of ethics for 2000 years with disastrous results. Hence her insistence on defining and understanding the idea of sacrifice (and altruism, the social variant of sacrifice) precisely. By identifying the idea precisely one can see its true nature and judge whether the idea is good or bad. The idea of sacrifice has a poisonous effect on mans life, so the advocates of altruism need to conceal its true nature, and this is why they employ the smokescreen of defining altruism by “helping others” or “charity”. As with poison concealed in water, this makes it more difficult to identify its true nature and effects (before it’s to late).