prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) (03/30/88)
> Rand starts defining ethics in _The Virtue of Selfishness" with: > "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers > its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." > So now she starts a series of substitutions without explaining them or > working through the process of why these are valid substitutions. > So the result is that man has to survive as man -- as a reasoning > being. So ethics now only applies to furthering the life of a > reasoning being. > > This was the justification in Dagny's killing the guard > while rescuing John Galt--"Calmly and impersonally, she, who > would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger > and fired straight at the heart of a man who wanted to exist > without the responsibility of consciousness." _Atlas Shrugged_, p. 1066 > in my paperback copy. That's the problem with Rand's system: > you get to be accuser, judge, and executioner. Rand doesn't > base this passage on force vrs. force, but on the man's not being > human because he refused to make a choice. Yes, this is typical of the judgmental nature of many of these so-called individualist philosophies, Rand's being prominent among them. As we can see, the individualists are no more or less individual than you or me, they simply adhere to a different list of beliefs that they think make them "better." They can make the judgment that another person isn't human enough by their standards and take any action they see fit. They decide that anyone not following their precepts (not accepting "the responsibility of consciousness," whatever that is) is worthy of whatever action they choose to take against them. This self-directed "individualism" is Nazism in sheep's clothing. >"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: >_Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only >judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is >the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't >see the difference between this and pure subjectivity. If reason is >decided by the individual then it's subjective--it's related to the >subject. If the individual decides to go around killing mystics with >Rand's ethical system as her/his basis then who's to disagree? It's >clearly in there as a part of the whole system of thought. Yes, yes, yes, you've got it now! This "individualism" IS the same as subjectivism, nothing more. But recognize the similarities between Rand's philosophy and the so called mystical philosophies. The mystic makes the same types of judgments about the world that the Rand people do, that his/her judgment represents the "right" thing to do. And that's the primary bullshit of the Objectivist's beliefs. In this respect they are no different from the religious lunatics who go around killing heathen unbelievers. The more you look at it, the more you see that they are exactly the same! Especially when you take into account their penchant for fatuous rationalization of their selfish actions in the name of the libertarian or objectivist principles. >This does tie in with Rand's views on abortion: "An embyro _has no >rights._ Rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_ >being." Ayn Rand, _The Objectivist_, October 1968, p. 6. > >You could argue that Rand intended for children to have some rights, >but you'd have to find an example where she listed what they would be. >But another arguement would be that they had no rights until they >became reasoning beings. More of the Nazi-based philosophy of "we can judge who is fully human and who is subhuman, who is worthy to live and die, based on our beliefs." The ultimate in social darwinism. Who is a "potential" and who is fully actualized in their sense, who is living up to their potential and who is "slacking off?" This sounds a good deal like the folks in soc.women who have been saying that it's fine to despise children as a group, but not OK to despise women as a group, following this up with excuses of "that's different." They make excuses about children being potential but not "productive" beings, and thus despising them or treating them in a second class way is fine. It's obvious that it goes across the board or it's not applicable at all, that if it's wrong to despise an entire group of people for empty prejudicial reasons, it's just as wrong to despise another group for the same reasons. But this is so typical of many modern movements, that the rights they fight for are for them only, that when the next group comes along seeking the same rights they will fight alongside their former oppressors to continue the oppression against the next group, since now it is in their "interests" to do so. The so-called individualist movements are most representative of this opportunistic self- indulgency. Not just because they use it, but because they provide a basis for believing that living by the rule of opportunistic self-interest is OK. Much like the rationalizations of the Michael Douglas character in the film "Wall Street," to pick a recent example from modern entertainment media. >(That opens up another can of worms since >Rand claimed that you had to choose to become a reasoning/conscious >being--quite a task for an unreasoning being.) 8-) Yes, this is one of the funniest elements in Rand's philosophy. How does an unreasoning being, presumably a human child prior to acquiring the knowledge necessary to "choose" reasoning versus shirking the "responsibility of consciousness," make this "choice?" You don't "choose" to become a "reasoning" being, you LEARN it---or perhaps you don't learn it! The Randites are almost exclusively a bunch of moderately to excessively successful types who look down at others who are not successful, or who have suffered life misfortunes, declaring that "they could have chosen to be successful the way I did," which is obviously bunk. Whatever circumstances made these people into what they call "reasoning/conscious beings," they did not achieve that stature by their personal action and choice, as they claim. They achieved it because they were "fortunate" enough to endure the circumstances, positive and negative, that led them to be as they are. It is laughable when people who are big on this self-actualized individualism stuff claim that they are the agents of choice that got them to the point where they are now. Like so many of their other proclamations about the nature of the world and the justifications for their selfish actions, these are nothing but rationalizations.
paul@vixie.UUCP (Paul Vixie Esq) (03/31/88)
In article <4266@chinet.UUCP> prof@chinet.UUCP (The Professor) writes:
[ a longish article blasting Objectivism and Ayn Rand. ]
Just for the record, I disagree with almost every assertion made, including
those intended to be factual rather than evaluative. I will pursue the
subject further, but not if it is to be with an exchange of invective.
If you look very carefully, "Professor," you will find that many Objectivists
are capable of holding calm, reasoned discussions about their philosophical
premises and conclusions. Can you say the same?
--
Paul A Vixie Esq
paul%vixie@uunet.uu.net
{uunet,ptsfa,hoptoad}!vixie!paul
San Francisco, (415) 647-7023tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/31/88)
In article <4266@chinet.UUCP> "The Professor" writes: >Yes, this is typical of the judgmental nature of many of these so-called >individualist philosophies, Rand's being prominent among them. >As we can see, >the individualists are no more or less individual than you or me, they simply >adhere to a different list of beliefs that they think make them "better." Jumping from a statement about all individualist philosophies (which is really only a statement about the individualist philosophies that _you_ have encountered) to a statement about all individualists is not of any value in a logical argument, and it is sure to offend the same people who would want to give an interesting response to your post. >>"The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: >>_Whose_ reason? The answer is _Yours_ . . . your mind is your only >>judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is >>the court of final appeal." [Atlas Shrugged, page. 1017.] I don't >>see the difference between this and pure subjectivity. The difference between this and pure subjectivity is that "reality is the court of final appeal". This means that if you want to claim that a statement is the result of "reason" then it must be a statement testable in reality. Unfortunately Rand doesn't limit herself to this, and she tries to claim that moral values are objectively true. For instance, some people who post in the talk.religion.newage group frequently imply that we don't all live in the same reality, so there is no useful "court of final appeal", even for assertions that ought to be testable. This is purely subjective and quit different from what Rand was advocating. I do believe that Rand's ideas about how to run a government are useful. Note that these fall within the range of ideas that are testable. >... they provide a basis >for believing that living by the rule of opportunistic self-interest is OK. Well, you can either make vague assertions that all of us individualists are fucked up, or you can propose useful alternatives. Depends on exactly what you are trying to accomplish here... -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) (04/04/88)
In article <1267@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: >In article <4266@chinet.UUCP> "The Professor" writes: > > >>... they provide a basis >>for believing that living by the rule of opportunistic self-interest is OK. > >Well, you can either make vague assertions that all of us >individualists are fucked up, or you can propose useful alternatives. >Depends on exactly what you are trying to accomplish here... >-- >Tim Freeman > What he is trying to accomplish here is a futile attempt to show you that what you so noblily call "individualism" is nothing more than a selfish elitism born of the atitude "...I'm going to get mine and screw everyone else." The problems of the world will not be solved by retreating into the self, with all people islands entrenched in their own greed and fear. We have evolved as social animals and, like it or not, that is how our fate will be determined, by how well we function is a society- not as sheep bound to a collectivist will, but as participants in the social work. To withdraw in the name of individualism is to condemn yourself and the world to the continued spiral of decay. Give us your hand, not your back. -- "To ask a question, you must first know most of the answer." - Robert Sheckley pan@well.UUCP (you figure out how to get their).
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (04/05/88)
In article <5592@well.UUCP> pan@well.UUCP (Philip Nicholls) writes: >What you so noblily call "individualism" is nothing more than a selfish >elitism born of the atitude "...I'm going to get mine and screw everyone >else." The problems of the world will not be solved by retreating into >the self, with all people islands entrenched in their own greed and fear. Here again there is the implication that selfishness is bad in some undefined manner. I never suggested retreating into the self. An ideally rational selfish person will participate in group endeavors when there is some advantage to acting as part of a group. It is possible to organize groups so that all of the participants are benefited by participating. The most obvious example of this is all business transactions that happen without either party coercing the other. The important thing here is that you should expect people to participate in groups only if it is consistent with being selfish. "Genes, mind, and culture" by Lumsden (1981) explains how participating in groups happens to selfish genes (which make up approximately selfish people). I don't know if "screw everyone else" means "I intend to hurt everyone else" (which is a big waste of effort, not to mention problems with retaliation) or "Everyone else is their own responsibility to take care of" (which I tend to agree with, except for people closely related to me). >To withdraw in the name of individualism is to condemn yourself and >the world to the continued spiral of decay. I repeat, withdrawing is your idea, not mine. What do you believe causes the world to be in a continuing spiral of decay now? (This is not a rhetorical question, I would really like to know.) -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf