Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New Guy

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My name is Adam, I'm a student at Brandeis University with majors in philosophy and history. I am not an Objectivist, but I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism. I have read all but maybe two books published by Ayn Rand, as well as some of her interviews, Piekoff's Ominous Parallels, and probably other things that don't come to mind at the moment. I'm 22, started my interest in Objectivism at 17 when a South African in high school convinced his redneck friend to read The Fountainhead. I've come a long way, baby.

I'm an unreasonable Red Sox fan, love dancing (mostly swing, some salsa), good food, travel, languages, astrophysics, math, Sidney Portier, Stevie Wonder, Baseball in conjunction with Molson Canadian, chess, shapely women, expressive but intelligible paintings and sculptures (particularly those containing shapely women), cowboy movies, doing a job correctly, happy music, and so forth.

Right now I'm very intrigued by logical systems, the role of tradition and society in shaping one's proper virtues vis-a-vis Alasdair MacIntyre, and how in hell Stanley Kubrick ever was allowed near a camera. The great mysteries of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, Adam.

Tradition and society have a role in shaping your proper virtues? What is the distinction between "proper" virtues and the other kind? (And wouldn't "improper" virtue be an oxymoron?) Objectivism holds that virtues, being the actions necessary to gain values, are required by reality, not shaped by tradition or society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in Objectivism, virtues are not actions but properties, as is the case in Aristotelian virtue theory. More specifically, they are properties that equip a person to achieve their telos or end, and you are quite right that one's end is understood by a process of identifying reality but tradition and society are part of reality and for which one must account--which is the central thesis of one of my favorite books, After Virtue by the said MacIntyre. For instance, the virtue of strength (which, under strict definition and in the view of ancient Greeks, was an actual virtue) was a property that allowed one to be industrious on a farm, which allowed one to be a good farmer, which is the telos of a farmer. But this system cannot exist outside of a society, since farming presupposes some sort of economy even if it is a pre-market one. Yet, for an aristocrat, such was marginally a virtue since it did not lend itself towards making one a good aristocrat, and to spend time cultivating such a quality would arguably make it improper.

In today's society relationships are much more fluid and I have been lightly mulling over the new role of society in providing the stage in which one chooses and develops a particular hierarchy of virtues. So I am playing with a more social view than Objectivism tends to admit but a more individualistic view than MacIntyre's. And really, I don't believe it contradicts the letter of Objectivism at all, whereas it does contradict MacIntyre. Like I said, it intrigues me.

Edited by LifeSimpliciter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in Objectivism, virtues are not actions but properties . . .

This statement is completely incorrect. Values are what one "acts to gain or keep", virtues are "how one gains or keeps them". This doesn't change because Ayn Rand used nouns to describe them and not verbs.

There are seven primary virtues deliniated by Objectivism, and each has an existential and an intellectual component. They are:

Rationality (using reason in one's undertakings)

Independence (living one's own life)

Integrity (always acting in accordance with one's principles)

Honesty (refusal to fake reality in any way, shape, or form)

Justice (granting to men that which they deserve by your judgement)

Productiveness (rearranging reality to serve your purposes)

Pride (commitment to one's own moral perfection)

The term strength as you use it is not a virtue, it is a value, and as such it makes sense that some would value it (it would serve their purpose) less than others.

Society and tradition are parts of reality; however they are man-made, not metaphysical givens, they must not be accepted without judgement, and in some cases they cannot be accepted at all. It is the requirements of the metaphysically given that dictate what a man must do in order to be successful. Tradition and society can do one of two things in this regard: help him act, or hinder his action. The only requirement, then, is to know which of these a given society does or tradition does, i.e. you must subject it to a process of thought.

Social relationships are no different today than they were a thousand years ago. The only difference is that men today have some measure of freedom, i.e. this society doesn't hinder them as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see in this no contradiction of what I have said except the first sentence. The idea that virtues are means of obtaining values is in no way inconsonant with the idea that they are properties and not actions. In her article concerning emergency ethics, Ayn Rand specifically rejected the Judeo-Christian formation of ethics that defines morality in terms of actions and rules without context. Instead she affirmed Aristotelian virtue theory, which I take to implicitly acknowledge Aristotle’s conception of virtues, though I have never seen her treat this explicitly one way or the other. If you have any excerpt I should be aware of, let me know.

But if we are to assume the Aristotelian framework, then it is explicit in The Nicomachean Ethics that virtues are properties, some of which may include rationality, productiveness, and strength, as strength is not a good in itself but a means unto other goods. The health that is often derived from strength may be considered a value, but simultaneously a virtue as it is a property that allows one to lead a happy life.

“Society and tradition are parts of reality; however they are man-made, not metaphysical givens, they must not be accepted without judgement, and in some cases they cannot be accepted at all.”

For the most part, agreed. This is all part of the discourse that goes into understanding the precise role that society and tradition play. While society is man-made, it is also in a sense metaphysically given--that is, it is an ontological fact. That does not mean that one must agree with it, or even treat it as just, but simply that one must identify and recognize it, and form one’s philosophy in light of it.

I find that many Objectivists are intensely hostile to the very mention of society, but I have a different conception of society than is traditionally intended by the word. I see the modern world, in the wake of the relativism and emotivism that is a result of the widespread and often unconsciously accepted Judeo-Christian formulation of ethics, has a very splintered and confused society. By “society”, I speak of the different forms of friendship that one obtains, either by mutual interest in a particular activity, mutual goals, and similar philosophies. Anything outside of this, such as a national society, I don’t actually recognize as society. And when I speak of society, I am not speaking of government, which often tends to be the case with communists. That I believe society is important in developing one’s hierarchy of virtues does not mean that I believe it should be enforced for the common good by a statist and dictatorial government.

I find this proper sense of society to play a central part in the way that one defines his own role in the world (for instance, if one sees a need in his society for a new technology, it becomes his telos to be a good technician, which requires the virtue of scientific intelligence). It is also central for a person’s ego, since man is a social animal. He needs companions and sexual relationships, which is--hopefully--good society.

“Social relationships are no different today than they were a thousand years ago.”

This, I must say, is entirely incorrect. The similarities begin and end with the fact that people had language, family, and nationality. But societies 1,000 years ago were by today’s standards radically localized and far more interwoven. The advent of Lutheranism was an initial break from this tradition, the likes of which had not been seen since perhaps the Sophists. Before this, it was believed that each person had a personal stake in the lives of all the others in the town’s community, and it was taken for granted that each may impose his will in particular ways (these ways would vary from nation to nation, town to town) on the others. In ancient Greek societies, each town was its own nation, with each citizen sharing a common goal. In Athens, the goal was wealth, culture, and intelligence. In Sparta it was strength, courage, and war; and what's more is that people then did not want any such liberal society for themselves or for others. They wanted to be bound together in pursuit of a common telos. That kind of society is entirely alien to modern Americans in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not an Objectivist, but I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism.

Why are you not an Objectivist? Which aspect of Objectivism do you not agree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welcome to the forum! completely agree with you on the comment you made about Kubrick. someone once recommended Clockwork Orange to me and I completely hated it. i posted my comments in the worst movies thread. anyhoo...welcome again and enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you not an Objectivist? Which aspect of Objectivism do you not agree with?

Sounds like a man looking for a fight. Okay, even though I'm a capitalist, there ought to be a law against Kubrick. I'm all for personal freedom, but in this case I think an inconsistent, ad hoc law preventing him from access to any recording devices ought to have been legislated.

Seriously, you'll find out what I agree and disagree with as I engage different posts. I'm busying waging intellectual war on several fronts, the last thing I care for is global nuclear war in the introductions page.

Student, LET'S GO FREAKIN' RED SOX! Yeah, I'm kinda diehard too, but I can't believe the price of the damn tickets. I couldn't get a single seat this year in Fenway, not even standing-room. Oh well, Yankees still suck and I think I'm taking my ass to a Paw Sox game this year.

Hiya Dagny, I know what you mean. I've seen A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket, and Dr. Strangelove. That's a combined total of about ten hours of my life that is now dead and gone, and I can never get it back. Each time I watched one of those movies, afterwards I would just stare at the screen and think to myself, "... F***! Why did I just do that to myself?"

And then I remember it was due to the memory of Spartacus and Paths of Glory, both of which were probably good only because of my boy Kirk Douglas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a man looking for a fight.

If you can't handle discussion questions without taking them as a personal attack, then I suggest you reconsider becoming a member of the OO.net community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Sparta it was strength, courage, and war; and what's more is that people then did not want any such liberal society for themselves or for others.  They wanted to be bound together in pursuit of a common telos.  That kind of society is entirely alien to modern Americans in particular.

Many people TODAY want to be "bound together in pursuit of a common telos" . . . why do you think cults and irrational religions are so successful?

I doubt that the percentage of people who wanted to do their own thing vs. those that wanted to be told what to do by an outside source was really so different then vs. now. However, doing your own thing had such severe penalties in irrational societies that even highly individualistic people tried to hide it.

Modern society is reverting to that state at an alarming rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mostly just screwing around.

Ok, but my question was a serious one. When I see you say "...I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism" but that you are not an Objectivist, I am intrigued as to which aspect(s) of Objectivism you do not agree with.

Edited by Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMegan, you may be right, I don’t know. If somebody said on public television that we all exist for the sake of the community, I would be taken aback, but perhaps I’m not in touch with American society enough. I always conceived of America as more ruggedly individualistic than that. I know we have our patches of collectivists, but they always appear to me as fringe groups that hold only a little intellectual sway in this culture.

As for my post count, I'm not quite sure what that would do for me.

“Ok, but my question was a serious one. When I see you say "...I do believe in the general themes of reality, reason, selfishness, capitalism, and romanticism" but that you are not an Objectivist, I am intrigued as to which aspect(s) of Objectivism you do not agree with.”

Well, for one I don’t believe there is a problem with having a woman president. I have no problem with homosexuality, and I do not believe in free will. There may be one or two other matters, most likely small ones, on which I disagree with Rand. But I figure one disagreement is enough to invalidate the title of ‘Objectivist’ since Ayn was rather specific that nobody ought to high-jack her philosophy and call it their own. If you don’t completely agree, then you don’t agree, and you’re not an Objectivist.

Then there are issues which the Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Piekoff support which I do not. For instance, it seems to me that they both support the Republican Party though I have never seen this stated explicitly. It just seems that they always support Republicans on any matter other than Christianity and drug legislation. Also, I don’t think it was right to attack Iraq. I don’t believe it was wrong to attack them because they should have been left in peace--I believe it was wrong because it unnecessarily killed American lives over something that was not such a great threat to us, and that greater threats exist in Saudi Arabia and Iran than in Iraq. And I could probably come up with more if I looked through the ARI and CapMag websites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... having a woman president.  I have no problem with homosexuality, and I do not believe in free will. 

.... Leonard Peikoff ... support the Republican Party

Just a quick note to say that many of these have been discussed in earlier threads, if you'd like to check them out. Also, this recording on Dr. Peikoff's explains why he supported Kerry for president (some other Objectivists disagreed).

Free will: unlike the others, this is a core topic in philosophy. If this is something you disagree with, then you're right to refrain from terming yourself an "Objectivist". There are a few long threads on this too. Check the archives. Have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMegan, you may be right, I don’t know.  If somebody said on public television that we all exist for the sake of the community, I would be taken aback, but perhaps I’m not in touch with American society enough.  I always conceived of America as more ruggedly individualistic than that.  I know we have our patches of collectivists, but they always appear to me as fringe groups that hold only a little intellectual sway in this culture.

As for my post count, I'm not quite sure what that would do for me.

Most of the people I know pay lip service BOTH to individualism AND collectivism at different times and in differing respects, which is really quite weird to watch. People who will challenge statements such as "the good of the community" or the "public good" are few and far between, however.

I will grant that most Americans still tend to act in a roughly individualistic manner, but the statement was more about intentions than actions, was it not? Collectivism of one shade or another is quite pervasive even in America.

Objectivists tend to enjoy finding like-minded people just as much as anyone else (that's what this forum is, after all) because other people that share your virtues and values are potentially of great value to you. Taking "telos" to be synonymous in this context with "ideology" or "pursuit", wouldn't someone that has no desire to interact with those that share his or her values and virtues be somewhat of a sociopath?

The post count comment was meant to be humorous, because it really doesn't do anything for you.

*sighs and shakes head* another determinist. Wonderful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one I don’t believe there is a problem with having a woman president.  I have no problem with homosexuality, and I do not believe in free will.  There may be one or two other matters, most likely small ones, on which I disagree with Rand.  But I figure one disagreement is enough to invalidate the title of ‘Objectivist’ since Ayn was rather specific that nobody ought to high-jack her philosophy and call it their own.  If you don’t completely agree, then you don’t agree, and you’re not an Objectivist.

Then there are issues which the Ayn Rand Institute and Leonard Piekoff support which I do not.  For instance, it seems to me that they both support the Republican Party though I have never seen this stated explicitly.  It just seems that they always support Republicans on any matter other than Christianity and drug legislation.  Also, I don’t think it was right to attack Iraq.  I don’t believe it was wrong to attack them because they should have been left in peace--I believe it was wrong because it unnecessarily killed American lives over something that was not such a great threat to us, and that greater threats exist in Saudi Arabia and Iran than in Iraq.  And I could probably come up with more if I looked through the ARI and CapMag websites.

Understand that "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not the same as "the summation of everything Ayn Rand ever said." Her opinions on homosexuality and presidential candidates are not aspects of Objectivism. I found your disbelief in free will surprising. When you said that you believe in selfishness, it seemed to imply that you believe that humans have volition and can choose not to be selfish. If humans lack free will then what do you mean when you say that you support selfishness? I don't know what makes you think that Leonard Piekoff supports the Republican Party. The only time I've ever seen him comment on any election is when he unequivocally announced that he would vote for John Kerry. If you want to comment on Mr. Peikoff's party stance than I suggest you research the issue first. On what issue in which the ARI has sided with the Republican Party do you not agree with? Regarding Iraq- it seems to me that the ARI made it clear that Iran is a bigger threat to the US than Iraq.

The fact that you mention looking through CapMag to find areas of Objectivism that you disagree with is concluding evidence that you are disillusioned as to what "Objectivism" means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennifer, I still don’t believe people today understand society that way people in the past did. Localism is not nearly the same as it was, and it is a popular post-Lutheran approach to society to consider everybody as an individual collected on a single plot of land--even Marxists begin their analysis of society and politics in this way, and then bind the people by means of physical resources and government. Pre-Lutheran society did not conceive of people as individuals to be bound together, but began with the assumption of society. It is almost like an irreducible and unquestionable entity.

A ‘telos’ is not quite an ideology, but more like a pursuit. Plato and Aristotle shared a very deep friendship which Aristotle consider the highest form of a shared telos, and it is quite clear that Plato and Aristotle did not share the same philosophy.

“wouldn't someone that has no desire to interact with those that share his or her values and virtues be somewhat of a sociopath?”

Would he? Or would he be independent? Yet another question about the proper role of society in a man’s life.

“*sighs and shakes head* another determinist. Wonderful. ”

Yes, I know we consistent thinkers sure are obnoxious.

“Understand that "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" is not the same as "the summation of everything Ayn Rand ever said." ”

True, and while you may discount homosexuality because Ayn Rand never discussed it, Ayn Rand believed that support for a woman president when there is a half-competent male candidate directly contradicted her philosophy. I also suspect Ayn Rand would have refused to recognize any homosexual as an Objectivist, considering how she thought it disgusting and improper for an educational institution to teach that it is acceptable behavior.

“I found your disbelief in free will surprising. When you said that you believe in selfishness, it seemed to imply that you believe that humans have volition and can choose not to be selfish.”

This is a very complicated matter that would be best served actually in a topic all to itself, and if I ever have a mind and the time to do so I will. But in all honesty, I have had this discussion with Objectivists before and found them entirely unreasonable on this matter. I know that it is the Objectivist view that free will is an axiom, and if it were left at that I would have no problem discussing the matter, but all too often the discussion turns into a personal attack and I don’t feel the need to get into that.

“If you want to comment on Mr. Peikoff's party stance than I suggest you research the issue first.”

I did note, explicitly, that I had seen no direct support of the Republican Party but that it seemed he took their position on every matter barring religion and drugs.

“Regarding Iraq- it seems to me that the ARI made it clear that Iran is a bigger threat to the US than Iraq.”

They do, but they also seem to believe the War on Iraq is an entirely justified expense of human life.

“The fact that you mention looking through CapMag to find areas of Objectivism that you disagree with is concluding evidence that you are disillusioned as to what "Objectivism" means.”

I wonder if you are confused by what ‘disillusioned’ means. If you mean to say I have illusions about what ‘Objectivism’ means, I don’t believe I do since I did distinguish between Objectivism and those persons and institutions associated with Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would he?  Or would he be independent?  Yet another question about the proper role of society in a man’s life.

He would be a sociopath. There's a difference between being dependant on having interpersonal relationships and desiring them. If you acknowledge that someone, through their own efforts at creating their own character, is of great potential value to you (which is what liking them means) and then you intentionally reject that value, you are nuts, you are acting against the furtherance of your own life, and towards your own destruction.

Yes, I know we consistent thinkers sure are obnoxious.

Determinism is self-contradictory. How is that "consistent"? Or do you mean simply that you have always thought this? Consistency with reality is just a wee bit more important than someone maintaining an irrational idea consistently. In this regard, I thoroughly encourage you to be inconsistent and change your mind to be consistent with reality.

If determinism were true, you would have no choice over what you think and believe, meaning that a.) you could claim nothing as objective knowledge, including the theory that man is determined, and b.) it would be impossible to persuade anyone of its veracity, anyway, since they have no choice about what they believe.

The statement "man has no free will" boils down to:

"I have free will, I am capable of directing my processes of thought, I am capable of telling truth from falsehood via that directed process of thought, and I have concluded . . . that I have no free will."

It is, in the end, just a rather egregious example of the fallacy of the "stolen concept".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennifer, I still don’t believe people today understand society that way people in the past did. 

People today don't understand gravity the same way that people in the past did, either: this does not mean that there has been a fundamental change in the nature of gravity between now and then. Man is a being with a specific nature; he acts in a way specified by that nature in a society, which is simply a (somewhat) organized group of men. People's ideas of varying correctness/incorrectness have no impact upon this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If you acknowledge that someone, through their own efforts at creating their own character, is of great potential value to you (which is what liking them means) and then you intentionally reject that value, you are nuts, you are acting against the furtherance of your own life, and towards your own destruction.”

Suppose one such person were to argue, what need have I for another person, like-minded or not? Actually, I have two ready examples: First, my father is a simple man that likes drinking beer after a day of work. Our neighbor is the same way, but they never spend time together. They share a similar if not the same lifestyle and yet there doesn’t seem to be a need for them to be around each other. By contrast, he and my mother are entirely different and they spend all of their time together, and both are perfectly happy.

Next, Aristotle said that one should not have too many friends, even if you all share a telos. This is simply time-management. Too many friends takes up too much time that would be devoted toward accomplishing your own goals.

So it cannot be the following case: If somebody shares your telos, you must spend time with him. Where is the line? If it does actually accomplish anything, couldn’t a man spend his entire life away from other people even if he philosophically agrees with them on every account?

“Determinism is self-contradictory.”

I deny this and assert that I had no choice but to write this sentence. It is my view that the concepts of free will and causality are mutually exclusive, even when given an Objectivist definition. Like I said, I don’t wish to discuss this here and perhaps not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is man-made. Which means, a given society can be good or evil, it can be large, or small, etc, it must be judged, not accepted uncritically. Man's creativity is his ability to rearrange the combinations of what exists. If he attempts to create a society that is unsuited for men, heaps of corpses are the result; he cannot change that fact, because THAT is caused by a metaphysical fact.

The nature of what makes a society good or evil, etc. has not and will not change, not so long as man is man; nor will man's relation to that society.

Recognizing which factors of reality are open to your choice and which are not is very important to being able to plan successful action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it cannot be the following case:  If somebody shares your telos, you must spend time with him.  Where is the line?  If it does[n't] actually accomplish anything, couldn’t a man spend his entire life away from other people even if he philosophically agrees with them on every account?

Sure. They'd only BE a value to you if you actually got something from spending time with them. So, like I said, if you acknowledge that said people are a value, and you DO get something from spending time with them, then intentionally reject it, you're nuts. Now, if you have other things that are of greater value that you are doing, that's different, but if these friends have a position in your hierarchy, you should spend as much time with them as that position dictates, no more, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...