For DJs who follow Objectivism

[Phyzzle]

Objectivism does tell us what to do, but doesn't tell us what WE ARE.

Metaphysics: Reality is Real, not YOUR hopes or wishes.

Epistemology: YOU know the input of YOUR senses, processed by YOUR reason.

Ethics: YOU ought to look out for YOUR rational self-interest.

But what are YOU?

Objectivists say some wrongheaded things about identity. That's my opionion. In fact, they don't say much at all.

The question of human existence is a huge one. Some say THE question of Philosophy.

What would Peikoff or the rest of Rand's students say:

Are you seperate from your thoughts?
If so, how do you decide what thoughts to have?
Isn't that deciding, itself a thought?
Aren't you just a bunch of thoughts causing eachother?
Are you all the thoughts you've ever had, or just the thoughts you can remember?

I doubt you could glean a clue about any of that from Objectivist literature. And yet their whole system is based on YOU and the self. It's on a whispy foundation that needs to be built up before I can adopt it.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Objectivism does tell us what to do, but doesn't tell us what WE ARE.

Metaphysics: Reality is Real, not YOUR hopes or wishes.

Epistemology: YOU know the input of YOUR senses, processed by YOUR reason.

Ethics: YOU ought to look out for YOUR rational self-interest.

But what are YOU?

Objectivists say some wrongheaded things about identity. That's my opionion. In fact, they don't say much at all.

The question of human existence is a huge one. Some say THE question of Philosophy.

What would Peikoff or the rest of Rand's students say:

Are you seperate from your thoughts?
If so, how do you decide what thoughts to have?
Isn't that deciding, itself a thought?
Aren't you just a bunch of thoughts causing eachother?
Are you all the thoughts you've ever had, or just the thoughts you can remember?

I doubt you could glean a clue about any of that from Objectivist literature. And yet their whole system is based on YOU and the self. It's on a whispy foundation that needs to be built up before I can adopt it.

So what does it tell you to do specifically?

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

Overly rational people are boring and lack creativity.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Overly rational people are boring and lack creativity.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Vulpine]

Overly rational people are boring and lack creativity.

Why don't you come here and say that to my face? :box:

Just kidding.

You use the term "overly". I don't run into enough "overly rational" people to agree or disagree, I have no experience with "overly rational" people from which to form an opinion or make any deductions.

Can you really have too much rationalization? I look around and think "No." You need not look any further than this forum to come to that same conclusion. I think "overly rational" is an oxymoron.

Am I boring you?

 

[Bonhomme]

I'm not quite an "objectivist," though I live by a lot of the tenets of objectivism.

There's a certain amount of "sh1t-work" to be done in a society, and it's unrealistic to think it's everyone's privilege to do what suits them. One is way ahead of the game if they can spend most of their time on an occupation (or occupations) they don't particularly mind doing.

I do think a purely objectivist society would ultimately come down to "masters and slaves," with money being the whip that keeps the slaves (in this context, those who make their living doing things they otherwise wouldn't want to do) at work, probably for a subsistence wage, because nothing I've seen indicates the desire of employers to pay any more than the minimum they have to. An underpaid worker who works under awful conditions can always leave, but there will always be another starving person to take his or her place. The wage and conditions for easily replaceable workers would inevitably settle to a point that's just a bit preferable to starvation and street begging to enough people to get the job done.

Bear in mind, I personally would probably do better than I'm doing now in a society based on objectivist principles. But I don't think society as a whole would do better. People have just not evolved enough, IMNSHO.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...I do think a purely objectivist society would ultimately come down to "masters and slaves," with money being the whip that keeps the slaves (in this context, those who make their living doing things they otherwise wouldn't want to do) at work, probably for a subsistence wage, because nothing I've seen indicates the desire of employers to pay any more than the minimum they have to. An underpaid worker who works under awful conditions can always leave, but there will always be another starving person to take his or her place. The wage and conditions for easily replaceable workers would inevitably settle to a point that's just a bit preferable to starvation and street begging to enough people to get the job done. ...

You guys are scaring me on your perception of what Objectivism is all about. What you guys are describing is some kind of monstrous hybrid cross between a bastardized style of Capitalism, Class-ism and a tyrannical monarchy run by whomever has the most means. That the "have nots" are due monetary compensation just because of their mere existence. They would be due extra compensation even though they are providing the bare minimum work which their pay merits. That they are due more just because someone else has more! WTF!!??

But no more talk about the monetary tenets of Objectivism. That is not what this thread is about nor is it the basis of what Objectivism is about. No offense to anyone but if you believe that Objectivism is solely about money or leadership, you have a ton of learning to do about the philosophy.

 

[Bonhomme]

Perhaps there is a distanction to be made between objectivism on a personal basis, and what I'm seeing as its implications on a societal basis. Perhaps also, the philosophy of objecivism, in recognizing the inherent worth of every individual, implies the sort of evolved thinking I alluded to in the last sentence of my prior post. This would be much like Crowley's philosophy of "Do What Thou Wilt" and "every man and woman is a star," Which I'm totally down with.

In any case, it's a good discussion, and I'll get back to it. But right now I have some reasonably tolerable tasks relating to my personal economic objectives to get to, so I'll get back to it later.

 

[Phyzzle]

So what does it tell you to do specifically?

Frankly, it's even a little fuzzy about that!

Supposedly, it's about rational self-interest, but it's still morally right to give up your own life to defend your family, since one's life would "not be worth living" without your family.

So they say the self-scrifice is morally forbidden . . . unless it's really, really important, and then it's not really self-sacrifice - even to give up your own survival.

FUZZY!! VAGUE!!

You can choose to define "self-interest" and "really important" however you like, depending on how you want to define yourself.

Basically, the only clear part of their morality is "don't initatiate force." The same as a libertarian.

But Objectiivsts refuse to cooperate with libertarians on any goals, because libertarians haven't swallowed the whole (fuzzy) Objectivist system.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You're getting too much information from too many sources and you're making assumptions to fill the gaps. I suggest reading "Atlas Shrugged" and then revisit the information you've gathered. It'll be a bit more easily understood after that.

 

[Phyzzle]

You're getting too much information from too many sources and you're making assumptions to fill the gaps. I suggest reading "Atlas Shrugged" and then revisit the information you've gathered. It'll be a bit more easily understood after that.

Who are you talking to? Me or Bonhomme?

 

[Phyzzle]

Because if it's me, I did read We the Living, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and that wierd little Anthem book.

John Galt stated that he would commit suicide rather than see his enemies harm his lover to blackmail him. He would rather kill himself than just give into his enemies and do what they want. That IS in Atlas Shrugged.

So a self-interested person choses self-termination over slavery? Hmmm.... they're using some wierd, shifting definition of self-interest that's hard to apply in moral situations.

This is mainly because they have no clear definition of self.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Because if it's me, I did read We the Living, Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and that wierd little Anthem book.

John Galt stated that he would commit suicide rather than see his enemies harm his lover to blackmail him. He would rather kill himself than just give into his enemies and do what they want. That IS in Atlas Shrugged.

So a self-interested person choses self-termination over slavery? Hmmm.... they're using some wierd, shifting definition of self-interest that's hard to apply in moral situations.

This is mainly because they have no clear definition of self.

First you say it's morally right to give your life for your family then you reference Galt who would commit suicide rather than giving the looters what they wanted. Those are two completely different things. I think you are confusing yourself.

 

[Phyzzle]

Galt stated that he would commit suicide rather than see his enemies harm his lover.

Yep, that's basically the same as protecting a family member.

You see, hard core blackmail gives you 3 choices:

*Do what they say.

*Sit and watch them go after your loved ones.

*Kill yourself.

And the most selfish choice is to . . . kill yourself?

Their definition of selfish is so flexible.


Selfishness and not sacrifice is not clear. Sacrifice is giving up your values. But by giving something up, you can SAY that it wasn't a value to you. You can be as altruistic as you want and DEFINE it as selfishness. Life as a poor monk is not morally wrong. It is a selfish choice, if it makes you happy.

It's very hard to think of any act that is absolutely unselfish.

Other than initiation of force, what actual choices have you witnessed that violate Objectivist morality? I'll bet that, from some point of view, ANY act could be called selfish.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Galt stated that he would commit suicide rather than see his enemies harm his lover.

Yep, that's basically the same as protecting a family member.

Unless the family member holds bearing on your own self interest there is no likeness what so ever.

Other than initiation of force, what actual choices have you witnessed that violate Objectivist morality? I'll bet that, from some point of view, ANY act could be called selfish.

No one is questioning The Virtue of Selfishness (another work by Rand), but you keep trying the attach one's needs gained by the delivery from others via force. That is completely against Objectivism.

John Galt - "I swear on my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask him to live for mine."

 

[Nocturnal]

Galt stated that he would commit suicide rather than see his enemies harm his lover.

Yep, that's basically the same as protecting a family member.

You see, hard core blackmail gives you 3 choices:

*Do what they say.

*Sit and watch them go after your loved ones.

*Kill yourself.

And the most selfish choice is to . . . kill yourself?

Their definition of selfish is so flexible.

The definition of selfish is NOT flexible; to act selfishly is to act in one's own interest. This goes beyond immediate gratification, which is why being principled is important.

The whole point of what Galt says is that between seeing his enemies harm his lover and dying, dying would be the least painful of the two. That is still acting selfishly.

Is Atlas Shrugged idealistic? OF COURSE! The whole point of art, literature included, is to portray the IDEAL. What Galt says is not the only moral perspective, but it is the most ideal and the most heroic. That is why it is in the book.

The truth is, once someone is pointing a gun at you, THEY are responsible for your actions. If someone puts a shotgun in your mouth and tells you to kill an innocent person, you are not responsible for killing them if you choose to do so, they are. It might be more heroic and idealistic to act one way or another, but it doesn't matter because no matter what you do it's not your fault.

Selfishness and not sacrifice is not clear. Sacrifice is giving up your values. But by giving something up, you can SAY that it wasn't a value to you. You can be as altruistic as you want and DEFINE it as selfishness. Life as a poor monk is not morally wrong. It is a selfish choice, if it makes you happy.

It's very hard to think of any act that is absolutely unselfish.

Other than initiation of force, what actual choices have you witnessed that violate Objectivist morality? I'll bet that, from some point of view, ANY act could be called selfish.

In Galt's case, by giving up ONE value (his life), he would gain another (a less painful existence). You have to look at the big picture.

There are two types of immoral actions. The first type is violating the rights of others, which you have identified. The second type is contradicting one's self interest, which you say is impossible. So what actions have I witnessed that violate Objectivist morality? How about using drugs? Devoting onself to a "god"? Being dishonest? The list goes on.

 

[Phyzzle]

it doesn't matter because no matter what you do it's not your fault.

Hmmm.... I didn't think of it that way. You're right, in a perverse blackmail scenario, pretty much any action of the victim is moral.

So what actions have I witnessed that violate Objectivist morality? How about using drugs? Devoting onself to a "god"? Being dishonest? The list goes on.

But drugs make you feel so goooood! :woo:

Seriously, a lot of drug users do decide that the feeling they get is so intense that it has more value than living a long, fulfilling life. I've been there before.

And I was still obeying Objectivist morality, because I'm giving up ONE value (my life) for another (feeling better than I ever could otherwise).

Basically, you can CHOOSE your own values, so long as you do not initiate force against others. That means you can choose religion or drugs as a value.

(Dishonesty would be akin to initiation of force.)

It is the freedom to choose one's own values that makes the Objectivist Ethics (pursuing your values) potentially vague.

But the real issue is the mind: Do real minds even HAVE a unique set of values?

Take, for example, WOMEN! Sometimes they will honestly verbalize one desire, even think and daydream about it, but actively pursue different ends, to their own bewilderment.

It may not be possible to Objectively say which desires are the "real" ones. There is no central command inside that brain pointing to a group of neurons on some lobe and saying "There, that spot is espousing the values I REALLY want."

You could use "Reason" to figure out what your real values are, but how does reason tell you what your values are? Reason says a fulfilling life (not just brute survival) is a value, but how do you know what's fulfilling?

When you get right down to it, there is no Objective method for defining your values, because the Self is a fluid thing, not centrally organized like that.

 

[Nocturnal]

But drugs make you feel so goooood! :woo:

Seriously, a lot of drug users do decide that the feeling they get is so intense that it has more value than living a long, fulfilling life. I've been there before.

And I was still obeying Objectivist morality, because I'm giving up ONE value (my life) for another (feeling better than I ever could otherwise).

Objectivism does not say outright that drugs are bad. But given the context of most people's lives, it would be immoral for most people to use them. If the net benefit from using drugs is not actually a benefit (costs more than it gives), then it is immoral.

Basically, you can CHOOSE your own values, so long as you do not initiate force against others. That means you can choose religion or drugs as a value.

Of course you choose your values. But you can still contradict your values. If I love life, for example, but I also like making unstable explosives, it might be immoral to jeopardize one value for a lesser one, or to threaten my life (a great value) but creating explosives (a lesser value). Drugs can have some value, but they can also carry with them risk. This is where making moral decisions comes into play.

(Dishonesty would be akin to initiation of force.)

Actually it wouldn't. You are not violating anyone's rights by being dishonest (at least in the sense that I intended).

It is the freedom to choose one's own values that makes the Objectivist Ethics (pursuing your values) potentially vague.

"Potentially." No one said that life was easy. It's each person's responsibility to figure out his values for himself, and sometimes that can take years.

But the real issue is the mind: Do real minds even HAVE a unique set of values?

Take, for example, WOMEN! Sometimes they will honestly verbalize one desire, even think and daydream about it, but actively pursue different ends, to their own bewilderment.

It may not be possible to Objectively say which desires are the "real" ones. There is no central command inside that brain pointing to a group of neurons on some lobe and saying "There, that spot is espousing the values I REALLY want."

You could use "Reason" to figure out what your real values are, but how does reason tell you what your values are? Reason says a fulfilling life (not just brute survival) is a value, but how do you know what's fulfilling?

When you get right down to it, there is no Objective method for defining your values, because the Self is a fluid thing, not centrally organized like that.

You can't use reason to figure out what your values are? Of course you can! If I take a bite of pie, it gives me pleasure, and I know that it is not harmful, reason tells me that it is a value. How do you know what's fulfulling? People spend years trying to figure that out. Whether they should go to college, have kids, get so-and-so job. Some people do find out what is fulfilling for them, and just the fact that it is possible should be enough to motivate an individual to spend his life searching for that until he finds it. Once he finds it, then he can start working toward it. The self is a "fluid thing," but it still has a distinct nature.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

....You can't use reason to figure out what your values are? Of course you can! ....

Is the need to argue this point reasonable?

 

[Nocturnal]

Sure, it is if so many people don't understand it. I don't mind explaining things which I esteem to be correct, no matter how simple, if someone doesn't understand them. Look at what propoganda alone has done to the common sense of society.