The Practical Intellectual

[BinniLee]

Hi

I'm Binni Lee and new to this forum. I'm interested in the prospects of the the "practical intellectual". The Practical intellectual as mentioned in "for the the new intellectual". I want to put my own ideas of the practical intellectual under scrutiny as offcourse they might be innfalliable.

Since the intellectual is a producer of knowledge the practical intellectual puts his knowledge to practical use. So from I thought that since this was so, wouldn't the practical intellectual create a society based on the principle of Objectivism? By that the practical intellectual would be striving for his own rational self interests as the leader of the socio-eco-philosophical entity, since he (or she) would benefit from more people joining in.

What I am talking about is that the practical intellectual sets an example of the virtue of objectivism in practice, instead of just writing books about it. Offcourse producing books on Objectivism is a virtue but producing a society of objectivism would be a even greater virtue.

thank you

Binni Lee

Edited April 18, 2007 by BinniLee

[Cogito]

Offcourse (sic.) producing books on objectivism (sic.) is a virtue but producing a society of objectivism (sic.) would be a even greater virtue.

First, it's Objectivism, not objectivism. Read the Forum Rules.

In response to what you wrote, how would you propose to go about producing a society of Objectivism? I'd say the best way would be to change the mainstream philosophy, making it tend towards Objectivism. How do you do that? Produce books (and lectures, etc.) on Objectivism.

[BinniLee]

First, it's Objectivism, not objectivism. Read the Forum Rules.

In response to what you wrote, how would you propose to go about producing a society of Objectivism? I'd say the best way would be to change the mainstream philosophy, making it tend towards Objectivism. How do you do that? Produce books (and lectures, etc.) on Objectivism.

I am suggesting that setting a practical example of Objectivism is perhaps a better way of promoting it then just focusing on changing mainstream philosophy. Becouse people are often unaware of Objectivism and an indifferent about philosophical matters. However with Objectivism estabilished as a tangiable social institution , that would exceed the pre-estabilsihed institutions becouse of it's sollid foundations, people would reconize this and perhaps join it. Promoting something that has been put to practice and works, seems a easier task then promoting something that hasn't been put to practice.

Edited April 18, 2007 by BinniLee

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the forum.

What exactly do you mean by forming of a "tangible social institution"? Do you mean an organization of some type?

[BinniLee]

Welcome to the forum.

What exactly do you mean by forming of a "tangible social institution"? Do you mean an organization of some type?

Well a organization in the sense of co-opertation of individuals striving for their rational self interests. But not one that publishes books or holds meetings or lectures, well not just limited to that. What I mean exactly to form a Objectivist society, a town perhaps, that would belong to objectivists and be executed in the appropriate manner. Turning the entire country over to Objectivism is perhaps unrealistic. We should reconize the resources available to us and settle for perhaps a Objectivist county. Then other people will care to join us, as the good of Objectivism would be obvious to everyone.

Edited April 18, 2007 by BinniLee

[ammonius]

Well a organization in the sense of co-opertation of individuals striving for their rational self interests. But not one that publishes books or holds meetings or lectures, well not just limited to that. What I mean exactly to form a Objectivist society, a town perhaps, that would belong to objectivists and be executed in the appropriate manner. Turning the entire country over to Objectivism is perhaps unrealistic. We should reconize the resources available to us and settle for perhaps a Objectivist county. Then other people will care to join us, as the good of Objectivism would be obvious to everyone.

Hello all, like Lee I am new to the board. Lee's got me thinking about what an Objectivist philosophy of society would look like. That is, what is the Objectivist concept of "society" (or institution)? Metaphysically, would a society be an individual (self identical), in the sense of an active subject with its own self-interest? If it is, would it have a self-interest? And how would the individuals that make up the society square that with their own rational self-interest? Furthermore, as individuals join or depart from a society (or the society expands geographically) would the society itself change (say from generation to generation), and what does that mean for it's self identity (i.e, would the individual American Society=American Society regardless of if it's 1776 or 2006)?

Classically, doesn't the very concept of society mean that there is a certain amount of the relinquishing of self-interest for the interest of the whole (social contract)? Is there an Objectivist sociology?

[Emily]

Lee's got me thinking about what an Objectivist philosophy of society would look like. That is, what is the Objectivist concept of "society" (or institution)? Metaphysically, would a society be an individual (self identical), in the sense of an active subject with its own self-interest? If it is, would it have a self-interest? And how would the individuals that make up the society square that with their own rational self-interest?

I think the answers to these questions can be found in Ayn Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness. I added the bold for emphasis.

The avowed mystics held the arbitraty, unaccountable "will of God" as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with "the good of society," thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as "the standard of the good is that which is good for society." This meant, in logic - and, today, in worldwide practice - that "society" stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since "the good" is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that "society" may do anything it pleases, since "the good" is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And - since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men - this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obligated to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires.

In other words there would be no self-interest of the society itself, only the men who make it up. Individuals living by Objectivist philosophy would have no problem with the over all good messing with the individual rational self-interest given that the members are indeed rational. One of my favorite quotes from Atlas Shrugged is:

There is no conflict of interests among men, neither in business nor in trade nor in their most personal desires--if they omit the irrational from their view of the possible and destruction from their view of the practical.

Furthermore, as individuals join or depart from a society (or the society expands geographically) would the society itself change (say from generation to generation), and what does that mean for it's self identity (i.e, would the individual American Society=American Society regardless of if it's 1776 or 2006)?

An Objectivist society would be constantly changing and improving itself. In the article "To Outsource or to Stagnate?" by Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow of the ARI he says: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

A free society requires and rewards individuals who are active-minded, forward-looking, keen to better themselves.

Classically, doesn't the very concept of society mean that there is a certain amount of the relinquishing of self-interest for the interest of the whole (social contract)? Is there an Objectivist sociology?

Classically, yes, if you are going by religious or altruist standards. Objectivists do not go by their standards, if fact Objectivist standards are conflicting with these standards.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Emily

[ammonius]

I think the answers to these questions can be found in Ayn Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness. I added the bold for emphasis.

In other words there would be no self-interest of the society itself, only the men who make it up. Individuals living by Objectivist philosophy would have no problem with the over all good messing with the individual rational self-interest given that the members are indeed rational. One of my favorite quotes from Atlas Shrugged is:

An Objectivist society would be constantly changing and improving itself. In the article "To Outsource or to Stagnate?" by Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow of the ARI he says: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

Classically, yes, if you are going by religious or altruist standards. Objectivists do not go by their standards, if fact Objectivist standards are conflicting with these standards.

Emily, thanks for the sources, I read the article as well. If you didn't know I am not an Objectivist, though lots of my friends are (I recently moved), and have found them to be great conversationalists. This is a point of agreement between myself and Rand, at least insofar as I don't think "society" is a useful concept. However, I don't think "society" is useful because it is a generality that is not accounted for in the actual particulars which would constitute society in general. That is, not that there aren't actual existing social entities, (clubs, unions, nations, associations, etc), but rather there is no such thing as "society in general", each social arrangement is particular.

However, I am wondering if there is a contradiction in the Axiom of Identity and the notion of growth, change, development. That is, an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree, though the acorn is a necessary condition for the oak tree (as well as minerals, sunlight, water, soil, etc), it isn't a sufficient condition for the oak. So we make a distinction between an acorn and an oak, one certainly wouldn't say acorn=oak. Perhaps I am missing the point of the Axiom of Identity, but it seems difficult for me to say America = America (if one is speaking of 1776 and/or 2006). If there is a difference between America at one date and America at another, on what grounds does one call America, America; and can one continue to call America=America if there is a change in that which constitutes America (f.ex. the individuals that make up America). In this way, that an oak is not an acorn, day is not night, there is a change in X that results in X+/-n.

Or to put it another way, if there were a society of Objectivists, how would the society decide to do anything as a society? Is there any way the rational self interest of one individual could conflict with another? If there isn't any conflict between the rational self-interests of the individuals in the society, would that not itself mean that the rational self-interest of all individuals is the same as that of all others (collective interest)? Would that properly be then individual self-interest? Would it not be precisely society's interest, with the interest of the individual trumped by society?

I guess on a more metaphysical level, I am having a hard time understanding how the Axiom of Identity allows for any given Identity to have a relationship with any other Identity without at the same time changing that Identity or producing a new Identity (like the acorn interacting with the water, soil, light, etc to become oak). Thus I am curious as how Objectivists account for this? In physics atomic particles come into contact with other atomic particles, some repel, others attract. Some particles join together with others based on their internal properties creating different atoms, do those atomic particles retain their identity in becoming molecular?

[JMeganSnow]

Holy cow, way to jack the topic, ammonius!

I will try to answer your question(s) briefly because I suppose that they are approximately related to this topic, but if I fail to answer to your satisfaction please start a new thread.

The problem, as you've stated it, is actually semantic. You're taking the word used to denote a thing and saying, in effect, that the word is identical with the thing. Then you seem to indicate that because the word can have numerous different denotations and connotations in different circumstances that the thing must have contradictory multiple states.

The law of identity applies to actual things, not to words. Yes, it's true that you could use the word "blue" to mean both "blue" and "sad" in different contexts and produce a nonsensical comparison, but that doesn't change or affect the nature of the things that you are comparing.

[JMeganSnow]

What I mean exactly to form a Objectivist society, a town perhaps, that would belong to objectivists and be executed in the appropriate manner.

Um, and how would you keep other people out without violating their rights? Where would this society be built? In an existing country, like the U.S.? Would this Objectivist commune pay taxes and enforce unjust federal and state laws? By what standard would it be "Objectivist" then?

Basically you're just talking about trying to construct a Utopia somewhere, which is highly impractical in any case. There's a group in the Libertarian party (The Free State Project) trying to do something similar, where all Libertarians will voluntarily move to New Hampshire and elect Libertarians to the state legislature, thus turning New Hampshire into a Libertarian Paradise which will then be a Beacon for the rest of the country. In reality this is pretty much just a parade of quackers.

For quite some time America was this Beacon to the rest of the world, and it's pretty obvious what's happened to the "grand experiment": no other country is as hated and reviled by the rest of the world.

Metaphorically, what ARI and other promulgators of Objectivist ideology are doing is trying to sell people new software . . . what you're proposing is analogous to a demo. You can sell the software without the demo. But the demo isn't going to generate much effect until people are interested in the software.