Why choose Death?

[Dr Chiill]

In Galt's speech he explains that his enemies have in fact chosen Death. But why did they choose death? Why did they continually look life in the face, and choose the opposite?

If this was answered in Atlas and I just missed that part or something please let me know. Or if there is another thread on this subject also please let me know.

Thanks.

[spaceplayer]

In Galt's speech he explains that his enemies have in fact chosen Death. But why did they choose death? Why did they continually look life in the face, and choose the opposite?

If this was answered in Atlas and I just missed that part or something please let me know. Or if there is another thread on this subject also please let me know.

Thanks.

"Dying is easy, it's living that scares me." -Annie Lennox

[Mr. Wynand]

It's because to live you must produce. The looters prevented the able from producing so if nothing is produced, then everyone dies.

[Eiuol]

In Galt's speech he explains that his enemies have in fact chosen Death. But why did they choose death? Why did they continually look life in the face, and choose the opposite?

Because they didn't truly understand what they believed. If they understood, they would already be on Galt's side. They didn't understand what they believed would -lead- to death. They indirectly chose death. Maybe it hurt too much to think that they dedicated their life to something bad like death, so they were simply evasive of the truth. They chose ignore what they saw, if they were even capable of using reason to figure out that their beliefs would lead to death.

[DavidOdden]

They indirectly chose death.

This, coupled with Peikoff's observation (OPAR p. 62) that "According to Objectivism, evasion is the vice that underlies all other vices", really summarizes the insidious nature of evil.

[Dr Chiill]

Thanks for the replies guys.

[whYNOT]

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.

[slacker00]

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.

I disagree with the concept of "living death". Death is a permanent state. There is no living death, unless we are talking about fictional tales of zombies or whatever.

death

1 a: a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life — compare brain death

b: an instance of dying <a disease causing many deaths>

2 a: the cause or occasion of loss of life <drinking was the death of him>

b: a cause of ruin <the slander that was death to my character — Wilkie Collins>

3capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe

4: the state of being dead

5 a: the passing or destruction of something inanimate <the death of vaudeville>

b: extinction6: civil death

7: slaughter

8Christian Science : the lie of life in matter : that which is unreal and untrue

I love the Einstein quote, BTW. It's a new one for me.

[whYNOT]

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

[01503]

I disagree with the concept of "living death". Death is a permanent state. There is no living death, unless we are talking about fictional tales of zombies or whatever.

Well, "living death" merely means "not living qua man". If you're not living qua man, but your biologically vital functions are still working, what are you?

[slacker00]

Hi Tony,

No, I am mortal. lol

I had a concussion once. Damn if that didn't feel like living death.

It's cool. I know what you meant. I'm just being a stickler lately.

Nothing wrong with getting creative with the English language either. It's just stuff like philosophy where words mean a lot, and I don't think it's appropriate to just start making shit up, so to speak. I know that's not what you were trying to do. I maybe crossed a line there.

In any case, I think there's a permanency about death. Someone who had a concussion or is just not philosophically alert has the potential to recover. My dead grandma, who I loved, doesn't get to have that luxury. I have a distinct respect for death.

Edited May 14, 2009 by slacker00

[phibetakappa]

In Galt's speech he explains that his enemies have in fact chosen Death.

But why did they choose death?

I read Galt's speech as a comprehensive answer to your question.

It catalogs many of the variants of bad philosophical premises, which cause a man to reverse his moral code.

It focuses on Altruism, as the answer why, but it also goes in to the underlying premises "supporting" Altruism.

It may be helpful to take some of the positive statements of philosophy provided in Atlas, and convert them to a negative statement, then look for examples of it.

E.g., if life requires purpose, then what is the opposite of purposefulness? Aimlessness etc.

But a good question is: what would you take as an explanation?

Why did person X choose belief Y? Why did person X choose to act on belief Y?

Again, what would you take as an explanation? What would you accept as a cause for a person's choice?

You are not going to find a great or even good reason for self-sacrifice to others, i.e., you are not going to find a great reason why a person would choose to make himself a mindless serf of another.

...because he felt like it? and he believes its good to act on one's emotions, i.e., one's whims are the proper standard of morality (a philosophy)

Well, why did he feel like it? You may just have to ask him.

One lead:

The title article of Ayn Rand's "Philosophy Who Needs it?" provides a great explanation for bad philosophies, i.e., that they are systems of rationalization, which often boil down to an attempt to help themselves evade the law of identity, for the purpose of avoiding the judgment of others.

From my experience, often the desire to evade the law of identity is to try to gain plausible deniability and/or a place to hide from the judgment of others.

One theory is that many behaviors in many people becomes a habit they formed coming out of early adolescents from a time when parents are constantly watching them and telling them what to do without reason; or if they are given reasons, they just don’t understand them because they just don’t have the knowledge to fully understand.

The prodding, and poking judgment of others, at a time when we just don’t have the knowledge to understand, can be very jarring psychologically.

People quickly learn that the judgment of them depends on other people’s ability to make positive identifications regarding their behaviors. They may start developing various ways to create misdirection or to miss lead others, and various ways to rationalize things to themselves.

As a person heading in the direction matures, and becomes more sophisticated, often the misdirection takes the form of figuring out ways to trick people to being uncertain or to shatter their confidence by getting them to doubt themselves. Modern philosophy is filled with so-called conundrums and problems designed to undermine a person’s confidence in their own judgment.

But there are many other avenues. E.g., Christian religion just attacks judgment direct. “Judge not lest ye be judged…” blah blah.

Edited May 15, 2009 by phibetakappa

[whYNOT]

Phi,

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

[MichaelH]

I'd like to expand on the "judge, and prepare to be judged" line.

People outside of Objectivism often have the wrong idea about "judging". Especially from a juedo-christian perspective, there's the idea that judgement is a one-time thing and the results are permanent. If you're judged to be a lazy slacker, then you're always a lazy slacker and that's all you'll ever be.

But that's not how judgement is supposed to work. It's true that you can only judge people based on their past; that's all we have access to. But past actions do not necessarily stain the present.

We are rational creatures with free will, and choose our behavior on a continuous basis. Having done bad things in the past does not condemn you to always be a bad person. It's what you choose to do now that matters, not what you chose in the past.

There have been threads about atoning for past wrongs, and that's absolutely appropriate. My point is that having made the wrong choice in the past does not force you to make the wrong choice again. The ability to change your course, the ability to decide, is what makes life distinct from death.

[whYNOT]

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.

[MichaelH]

You're absolutely right that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. The point of my post is that judgement is not permanent because people can change.

As you mention, there's been a social demonization of judgement. Subjectivism runs deep in the US: all societies are equal, all viewpoints are equally valid, who are we to decide right or wrong? A commond objection to judging is that it will make the judged person "feel bad".

If you are doing wrong, "feeling bad" is an appropriate response. It should encourage you to change your behavior! And then, once the behavior is changed, the judgement is lifted.

[whYNOT]

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

[Grames]

... the judgement is lifted.

Judgment is not a curse to be "lifted". It is always there, but perhaps updated or changed in response to evident changes in the person.

Stunning.

Branden's statement was hardly "stunning". More like "obvious." Perhaps necessary for his presentation, but pretty dull.

[MichaelH]

Judgment is not a curse to be "lifted". It is always there, but perhaps updated or changed in response to evident changes in the person.

Point happily conceded.

[whYNOT]

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!}