Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Allies

Rate this topic


Plisken

Recommended Posts

Who are the allies of a modern individualist? It would seem that libertarians are natural allies of the objectivist and "real conservatives" in some far-off gray land. But who are your allies?

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that statism from the left and right is on the march full speed. In fact, I predict a possible civil war (multi-faceted) in the next 30 years. In my doom-n-gloom scenario, who do you ally with and who can you and how do you trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that kind of civil war scenario. My personal allies are just that; personal. I don't trust any organization to stick its neck out because it values me. Only my family and friends would do that, and I for them. However, I have more trust for and common cause with organizations and people associated with ARI and Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil war? You mean the type the French fight on the streets of Paris? :)

Even if the country continues to go downhill, the possible destination does not look much worse that a version of one of the more socialistic European countries. Given this, I think allies are to be found everywhere if one considers specific issues, and everywhere if one considers people who are willing to think.

BTW: This is in the debate sub-forum. Do you mean it to be a debate, or should the thread be moved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are the allies of a modern individualist? It would seem that libertarians are natural allies of the Objectivist and "real conservatives" in some far-off gray land. But who are your allies?

It depends on what kind of allies you're looking for. Alliances, by and large, are matters of convenience, of certain common interests regardless of other considerations. They can be broad and for the long term, or narrow and for a short term.

In these days, an individualist can easily form narrow alliances, what Ayn Rand called ad-hoc alliances, with all sorts of groups across the political range. For instance, right now a great many "moderate" conservatives are defending Denmark and free speech int he cartoon jihad. Regardless of what their views are on immigration, drugs, abortion, etc etc, one can morally support their fight for free speech, or seek support from them for such a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It depends on what kind of allies you're looking for. Alliances, by and large, are matters of convenience, of certain common interests regardless of other considerations. They can be broad and for the long term, or narrow and for a short term.

In these days, an individualist can easily form narrow alliances, what Ayn Rand called ad-hoc alliances, with all sorts of groups across the political range. For instance, right now a great many "moderate" conservatives are defending Denmark and free speech int he cartoon jihad. Regardless of what their views are on immigration, drugs, abortion, etc etc, one can morally support their fight for free speech, or seek support from them for such a fight.

Out of curiousity, and anyone else is free to answer this, what would be the nature of a so-called long term alliance. What I mean about this is, how would the Objectivist approach a political alliance (though by no means in 100% principle) with such pro-capitalistic groups as the Adam Smith Society, or Classical Liberal/Naturalist groups such as the John Locke foundation or the Voltaire Society of America. These groups claim a moral defense of individual rights, though they are naturalists rather than objectivists, and inspired by Deist philosophers rather than Atheist philosophers.

I am not interested in neccesarily having an epic arguement over this, I am just seeking a simple, principled answer from any of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These groups claim a moral defense of individual rights, though they are naturalists rather than objectivists, and inspired by Deist philosophers rather than Atheist philosophers.

What do you mean by "objectivists"? How does that differ from "Objectivists"?

I am not interested in neccesarily having an epic arguement over this, I am just seeking a simple, principled answer from any of you.

Then why did you [mis]place this topic-thread in the Debate Forums? I ask because I am a supporter of having a forum set aside for more formal debate, especially when a non-Objectivist raises a point. I hold that the Debate Forums are special. They deserve to be kept clear of debris. They deserve to be reserved for actual debates, especially where the result can be enhanced by limiting the number of participants.

I vote for this topic-thread to be moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] what would be the nature of a so-called long term alliance. What I mean about this is, how would the Objectivist approach a political alliance (though by no means in 100% principle) with such pro-capitalistic groups [...]

[...] I am just seeking a simple, principled answer from any of you.

I am not sure what you mean by "the Objectivist." Objectivism is a philosophy, and as such it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. The application of a philosophy to particular circumstances depends on many factors, such as the personal goals of the individual.

I see no moral conflict in working with other groups to achieve particular non-philosophical purposes. Here are two examples I have seen close-up:

1. Alliances with leftists to oppose the draft.

2. Alliances with leftists and conservatives to oppose a sales tax.

These ad-hoc, single-issue campaigns are a chance to change one's world, in some measure. They are not, by definition, a chance to spread one's philosophy. The reason is that in such alliances the participants usually agree to set that aside and concentrate on a very narrow goal instead.

Such an alliance would probably be wrong for an Objectivist if the alliance supported a non-Objectivist philosophy as part of its single-issue campaign.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what you mean by "the Objectivist." Objectivism is a philosophy, and as such it applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. The application of a philosophy to particular circumstances depends on many factors, such as the personal goals of the individual.
Forgive the confusion in terms, but what I was inquiring about is the nature of a relationship between those who follow the Philosophy of Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy). versus someone who maintains the Voltaire/Locke position that Natural Law through a natural god. Deism is a belief in a rational pursuit of God, Objectivism rejects the existence of a God. I'm not interested in convincing anyone on this forum that God exists (I don't think this ever actually happens, since belief requires volition), I'm just seeking to understand better the nature of Objectivism's contrast with the old Enlightenment philosophers, and the God issue is one example where I see a difference.

I see no moral conflict in working with other groups to achieve particular non-philosophical purposes. Here are two examples I have seen close-up:

What I was seeking was to understand the reason why a philosophical alliance with a Lockean would not be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the answer is that you should not sanction something you don't agree with. If you enter a long-term alliance with another group then you are implicitly saying that you approve of them, and that would not be true in this case.

The existence of God is a major issue, and it has consequences for ones' metaphysics and epistemology, which are in turn the basis of any philosophy. I can't imagine that the existence of God is the only point where Objectivists and Lockeans disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I was seeking was to understand the reason why a philosophical alliance with a Lockean would not be possible.

An alliance for what purpose? Please be specific.

Here as elsewhere, purpose is a major element that determines context.

P. S. -- For the record, your post #5 says "political" alliance not "philosophical" alliance.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alliance for what purpose? Please be specific.

Here as elsewhere, purpose is a major element that determines context.

P. S. -- For the record, your post #5 says "political" alliance not "philosophical" alliance.

To correct the initial error, I'm interested in both political and philosophical alliance, and I will try to frame both a bit more clearly.

Political - Advocating laws based on individual rights and minimizing/eliminating statist policies conducted by the government.

Philosophical - Advocating a system based on individual rights, a philosophical condemnation of both the tyranny of individual government despots and the tyranny of the majority. (This philosophical alliance would deal mostly with Ethics, since there would obviously be strong contradictory views on metaphysics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On philosophical grounds it seems similar to an alliance with libertarians. I don't think you can ignore the whole philosophical basis of your ally's philosophy in such a case, because it will cause conflicts eventually.

Perhaps I am missing something though, I need to think about this a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On philosophical grounds it seems similar to an alliance with libertarians. I don't think you can ignore the whole philosophical basis of your ally's philosophy in such a case, because it will cause conflicts eventually.

Perhaps I am missing something though, I need to think about this a little more.

I understand the distinction in the causes, John Locke did not believe in an eternal universe which is what Objectivism asserts in metaphysics and there were some Epistemological differences as well, and of course Ayn Rand's addressing the problem of universals puts her in a different school than any philosopher of the enlightenment, but I would hope that you guys look more fondly on John Locke than you do on the Libertarians. John Locke was very prolific philosopher and had a very comprehensive philosophy, where as my readings on Libertarian ideology would lead me to believe that they value choice more than reason, which is an obvious absurdity. I would assert that the Libertarians are pretty much in line with Nihilism, they're view on the war on terror in particular (of those I know anyway) leads me to believe that they are moved more by conventional wisdom at times than by rational discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] I would hope that you guys look more fondly on John Locke than you do on the Libertarians. John Locke was very prolific philosopher and had a very comprehensive philosophy, [...]

I am familiar only with An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I have several questions about his actual, guiding philosophy as a whole:

- Ethics: Was he an altruist or an egoist?

- Epistemology: What was his view of faith?

- Metaphysics (ontology): Did he believe in one world only, this world of sense-perceptible entities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am familiar only with An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I have several questions about his actual, guiding philosophy as a whole:

- Ethics: Was he an altruist or an egoist?

- Epistemology: What was his view of faith?

- Metaphysics (ontology): Did he believe in one world only, this world of sense-perceptible entities?

- Ethics: As far as my readings of him go, he leaned more towards egoism, but by the standards laid out by objectivism, he has some "concern for others/public good" tendencies that can't be denied. It's difficult to say for certain, but I don't think he saw a contradiction between benevolence and individualism, which would suggest something more in line with individual rights. He was no Immanuel Kant, that much is certain, but I myself noted some several references to public service. But as a Thomist, I don't see this as altruism, because the kind of charity that is in line with individualism is one where a mutual value exchange takes place, ergo the giver is rewarded in some way. At least by Comte's standard, Locke was not an altruist, although I don't know if he satisfies the definition of a rational egoist.

- Epistemology: Most Deists sought God through a posterori reasoning, or in more basic terms, they sought to avoid the absurdities that would often result from what is rightfully called blind faith (non-rational means of knowledge). This is a slightly more consistent form of what Aquinas used in his arguements for a reason based proof of God's existence. I know that this method is not a perfect proof, in fact, it is notably imperfect by virtue of how many people reject it even when fully understanding it. Voltaire was openly hostile to any form of religion, which he classified as the ridiculous methods of the tyrant by virtue of the lack of reason involved. Since the good Frenchman, whom I admire highly (my Catholicism non-widthstanding) was influenced by Locke, it would make sense that Locke would be more in this school. Granted, this is a different conclusion of metaphysics than objectivism. All questions of God stem from either an affirmation or a denial, both answers can come from either reason or irrational thought.

- Metaphysics: I would guess based on what I've read (I am still at study) that his views on this were similar to Aristotle's, though close to the objectivism, still carries what Leonard Peikoff refers to as some remnants of Plato. The belief in a "Natural God" indicates the existence of an afterlife, otherwise the existence of a diety would serve little purpose other than explaining the origin of the universe. This is definately not in line with objectivism, and it's also the determining factor in why I do not qualify as a follower of the philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark Unicorn (Jon), thank you for your assessment. Based only on ECHU, and speaking generally, I tend to agree with your description of his ethics. By implication, at least, he was an egoist, but one who accepted a principle of obligation in certain circumstances -- and that obligation came through his faith, I would suggest (for further study).

Perhaps my question about his epistemology wasn't clear. Did he see a role for faith? Working only from a little study of ECHU, I would say the same situation applies here as it did in ethics. He supports the use of reason, but there are some circumstances where, he concedes, faith is necessary. But, as I think you are saying, he would subject such beliefs to intellectual scrutiny.

In the field of ontology (metaphysics), my tentative interpretation (again relying only on an initial reading of ECHU) is that he did hold to two worlds, this world and a supernatural one.

I will need to go back and reread ECHU -- a large enterprise, as you know -- to test my provisional conclusions above.

I also want to thank you for being very open about the identity of your own worldview (religion, specifically Thomist Catholicism). Your manner and interests remind me of Robert George. I have read only his Clash of Orthodoxies. I found it intriguing. He is an example of someone who can be an ally of Objectivists in single-issue campaigns. Even where we disagree, I can respect him as an individual.

It might amuse you to know that an Evangelical Christian, who was also my Arabic tutor for awhile, gave me Clash of Orthodoxies.

Best regards,

P. S. -- The proper spelling (capitalization) of the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy is Objectivism not objectivism. Improper capitalization of that central term is a violation of forum rules. I hope you won't inadvertently violate the rules. I hope you will continue to participate in ObjectivismOnline.net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark Unicorn (Jon), thank you for your assessment. Based only on ECHU, and speaking generally, I tend to agree with your description of his ethics. By implication, at least, he was an egoist, but one who accepted a principle of obligation in certain circumstances -- and that obligation came through his faith, I would suggest (for further study).

Perhaps my question about his epistemology wasn't clear. Did he see a role for faith? Working only from a little study of ECHU, I would say the same situation applies here as it did in ethics. He supports the use of reason, but there are some circumstances where, he concedes, faith is necessary. But, as I think you are saying, he would subject such beliefs to intellectual scrutiny.

In the field of ontology (metaphysics), my tentative interpretation (again relying only on an initial reading of ECHU) is that he did hold to two worlds, this world and a supernatural one.

I will need to go back and reread ECHU -- a large enterprise, as you know -- to test my provisional conclusions above.

I also want to thank you for being very open about the identity of your own worldview (religion, specifically Thomist Catholicism). Your manner and interests remind me of Robert George. I have read only his Clash of Orthodoxies. I found it intriguing. He is an example of someone who can be an ally of Objectivists in single-issue campaigns. Even where we disagree, I can respect him as an individual.

It might amuse you to know that an Evangelical Christian, who was also my Arabic tutor for awhile, gave me Clash of Orthodoxies.

Best regards,

P. S. -- The proper spelling (capitalization) of the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy is Objectivism not objectivism. Improper capitalization of that central term is a violation of forum rules. I hope you won't inadvertently violate the rules. I hope you will continue to participate in ObjectivismOnline.net.

One of the noted criticisms that Ayn Rand was correct on was the inconsistent defense of individual rights, and this applied to even the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith. Locke was pretty big on certain obligations, but I would assert that these obligations would mostly be in a volitional capacity, ergo the choice to have children, for example, would come with the accountability required for making such a choice. Furthermore, I think Ayn Rand herself made a distinction between obligations and duty, one which I agree with.

As far as the principle of faith goes, I would tend to think that he believed that it was a matter of principle introspection, rather than a means for establishing laws. I don't think he would be a fan of the arbitrary nature of how our current legislature decides matters for the state. But I do see a point in your concern, if he supported faith as a method for attaining knowledge, in a free society this could open the door for Sophist-like politicians and philosophers to attack reason. I don't think that any of the Enlightenment philosophers were perfect, in fact, I would classify such charlatans as Rousseau, Hume, Bentham, and Kant as the Counter-Enlightenment. There definately needs to be a re-assessment of some of the original ideas of the Enlightenment if we are to understand how to reverse the course that this country is on, let alone the course of man in the universal sense.

As far as the two worlds principle goes, there have been several assertions made by some parties amongst Christian apologists that an afterlife does not automatically imply a separate reality, but merely a change in the state of being after one's death. Granted, such a change in state can not be rationally defined since it would exist outside of a person's perceptive capabilities. I think there is a difference between believing that a part of your soul, the medium by which abstractions and memories are retained, goes on eternally after the flesh has expired, is different than asserting that an elite group of people keep the gates to such a place and alone have the capability to recieve messages from it (Platonic Christianity).

Some protestants, surprisingly, have a high level of respect for reason. I would chalk this up to the splits amongst the original 3 protestant churches. Though the Luther and the Calvin were openly hostile to Aquinas, many of their followers left the Catholic Church due to local problems of priestly hypocrisy, more so than theological or philosophical concerns.

P.S. - My apologies for my capitalization mistakes, sometimes I neglect to hit the shift key when typing, hense the mistake on the critical term Objectivism. This is not done purposefully, I assure you, as the implications would be that I give credence to some who label themselves as such yet do not follow the principles of the philosophy's founder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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