Catching up in Proverbs now...
1:29-33
-Because they did not accept rebuke or advice, because they hated knowledge and chose not to fear the Lord they will eat the fruit of their ways.
1:32 "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them" - What a terrifying verse. I know I have been guilty of complacency on more than one occasion. Lord, help me to cease to be complacent.
But, luckily, 32 is counterbalanced with 33: "but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm".
Proverbs 2
1-5: If you look for it, if you search for it like its valuable (like silver or a hidden treasure) then you will find it. You will find the fear of the Lord and the knowledge of God.
10 - Wisdom will enter your heart
11 - Discretion will protect you
2:19 is somewhat distressing considering my history. "None who go to her return or attain the paths of life". Her being the wayward wife with her seductive words.
Proverbs 3
3:3-4 "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man". I need to really bind these things and write them on the tablet of my heart. Let this soak in Lord.
3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight". Let this soak in as well. I need to really not lean on my own understanding (a thing I am consistently guilty of).
Here in Proverbs 3 we see a little literal? allegorical? metaphorical? account of creation:
3:19-20 "By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew". Genesis doesn't use any of this wordage and yet it makes sense on both a literal and allegorical/metaphorical account.
In light of rereading and typing my notes on Rand and her views on altruism, I can say that it is truly opposite to the Biblical approach to ethics. Proverbs 3:27-28 "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow' - when you have it with you". Rand talks about altruistic ethics being hypothetical, asking, 'Should I act if a man is hanging on by his fingernails off a ledge' or 'Should I pull the person from a moving car'. If it is in you power, then act. That is the ethics we are to practice.
God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. Another point against the prideful ethics of Rand. (Proverbs 3:34).
Proverbs 4
How important is wisdom? 4:7 "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding" or "Whatever else you get, get understanding".
Proverbs 4:14-17 warns against walking in the wicked's ways -
"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence".
It's like wickedness is an addiction. You get hooked and pulled in further and further until you cannot sleep without doing evil. It gets so bad that they get trapped in it. 4:19 "But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble". Why did you do that? I don't know it just happened. Nothing in particular triggered it. It just happened. How many times has that (paraphrase) happened to me? Break my chains Lord.
Showing posts with label Rand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Assessment of my notes on Rand
In June - July 2006 I was reading Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I was also big on my "Quest for Knowledge" which was my personal maxim of looking at everything (I shudder to use the word in light of Rand's usage) objectively and gleaning truth from it. I most certainly didn't look at Rand from an objective standpoint. I probably should go back and read more of her work. But, In the past nine and a half years I think I have at least read some of her works again (we'll find out if I took any notes or if they survive). At the time I was throwing around the big boy words I was learning in my philosophy classes and practicing my own little word games to trap Rand in her words. Thankfully, I didn't use the phrase 'existentially repugnant', which was a personal favorite of mine for a mercifully short time. But that essence was there.
That said, I find much of the ethical framework of Rand's to be morally backwards. I do think that she praised what ought not to be praised and despised that which should not be despised. It lends itself nicely to a depraved form of (using a word that I seemed particularly fond of at the time of my notes) megalomania. But, I have to ask for forgiveness because at the time I was still learning politics and hadn't yet matured into my own brand of political thought. I was massively addicted to the 24-hour news cycle at the time and a particular fan of Hannity & Colmes. I cheered Hannity and jeered Colmes. In essence I was whipped up by the rhetoric and fell right into the trap they laid for me. I didn't realize until later how much of a farce this fair & balanced show was. But, it was in this educational indoctrination that I found myself after having yelled at a book suddenly nodding along when it came to Rand's political philosophy of unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. In light of maturity, I no longer watch Hannity (or really any of the 24-hour news cycle, realizing now that it is all entertainment based on the Jerry Springer model of debasing humanity for our pleasure, without the almost redemptive bit of Springer's little morale at the end of each show).
While my political leanings put me much more squarely in the center, I haven't abandoned my conservative roots. I find that I need to say that I doubt I would nod along with Rand's political theories any longer. Her arguments against Collectivism were one thing I think that I nodded along with as they were an attack on racism (something which needs to be attacked). Then I provided my little wit and word play (like the Sophist I am working to grow out of) to attack her 'racism', which was unfair (it would more rightly have been called a classism). But, I think coming from a more experienced standpoint I could read the book and glean a bit more now. I still think I might yell at it though.
However, Nathaniel Branden's essay The Psychology of Pleasure stood out for me about his assessment of of looking at work. My notes said:
"Work which can be looked upon in various ways:
1) one can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoy a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek to destroy others as pleasure. They are parasites who live off the work of others"
At 22, I really didn't know what productive work was. I was young, enthusiastic and full of energy. Even when I did dead-end jobs it didn't matter because everything was new. Now at 32 I understand a bit more. Thankfully, I have never experienced 4. But the other three I have known at various stages in my career. Unfortunately I have fallen prey to the trap of 3 now twice.
Ostensibly, the purpose of this blog is to gather all of my notes together so I can write books and draw on my past knowledge and experiences. What I'm learning in doing this is that it's simply a continuation of the aforementioned 'quest for knowledge'. I'm not as bright-eyed as I once was. I'm not as innocent and have lived a bit more than I would have liked at this point in my life. There is a creeping cynicism that crops up now and then, sometimes more viciously than others. I'm not calling it such a lofty thing as the 'quest for knowledge' although I tamely called the last bit of information in my notebook 3 something like 'my little theory of everything'. It was somewhat sarcastic, but I might still have those flashes of grandeur underneath my cynicism that crop up as well from time to time. So, I guess in my assessing my notes on Rand I've come to the conclusions that I've forgotten some of what I've learned, I probably should read the book again and that I need to do productive work in a way that I find pleasure in it, ceaselessly learning, thinking and as humbly as I can put it, achieving. I need to write those books that are plaguing my mind. I need to get out of the mindset of taking on pleasures that shut off consciousness. These are too short-lived and have far too great of consequences to continue to pursue with such verve.
That said, I find much of the ethical framework of Rand's to be morally backwards. I do think that she praised what ought not to be praised and despised that which should not be despised. It lends itself nicely to a depraved form of (using a word that I seemed particularly fond of at the time of my notes) megalomania. But, I have to ask for forgiveness because at the time I was still learning politics and hadn't yet matured into my own brand of political thought. I was massively addicted to the 24-hour news cycle at the time and a particular fan of Hannity & Colmes. I cheered Hannity and jeered Colmes. In essence I was whipped up by the rhetoric and fell right into the trap they laid for me. I didn't realize until later how much of a farce this fair & balanced show was. But, it was in this educational indoctrination that I found myself after having yelled at a book suddenly nodding along when it came to Rand's political philosophy of unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. In light of maturity, I no longer watch Hannity (or really any of the 24-hour news cycle, realizing now that it is all entertainment based on the Jerry Springer model of debasing humanity for our pleasure, without the almost redemptive bit of Springer's little morale at the end of each show).
While my political leanings put me much more squarely in the center, I haven't abandoned my conservative roots. I find that I need to say that I doubt I would nod along with Rand's political theories any longer. Her arguments against Collectivism were one thing I think that I nodded along with as they were an attack on racism (something which needs to be attacked). Then I provided my little wit and word play (like the Sophist I am working to grow out of) to attack her 'racism', which was unfair (it would more rightly have been called a classism). But, I think coming from a more experienced standpoint I could read the book and glean a bit more now. I still think I might yell at it though.
However, Nathaniel Branden's essay The Psychology of Pleasure stood out for me about his assessment of of looking at work. My notes said:
"Work which can be looked upon in various ways:
1) one can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoy a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek to destroy others as pleasure. They are parasites who live off the work of others"
At 22, I really didn't know what productive work was. I was young, enthusiastic and full of energy. Even when I did dead-end jobs it didn't matter because everything was new. Now at 32 I understand a bit more. Thankfully, I have never experienced 4. But the other three I have known at various stages in my career. Unfortunately I have fallen prey to the trap of 3 now twice.
Ostensibly, the purpose of this blog is to gather all of my notes together so I can write books and draw on my past knowledge and experiences. What I'm learning in doing this is that it's simply a continuation of the aforementioned 'quest for knowledge'. I'm not as bright-eyed as I once was. I'm not as innocent and have lived a bit more than I would have liked at this point in my life. There is a creeping cynicism that crops up now and then, sometimes more viciously than others. I'm not calling it such a lofty thing as the 'quest for knowledge' although I tamely called the last bit of information in my notebook 3 something like 'my little theory of everything'. It was somewhat sarcastic, but I might still have those flashes of grandeur underneath my cynicism that crop up as well from time to time. So, I guess in my assessing my notes on Rand I've come to the conclusions that I've forgotten some of what I've learned, I probably should read the book again and that I need to do productive work in a way that I find pleasure in it, ceaselessly learning, thinking and as humbly as I can put it, achieving. I need to write those books that are plaguing my mind. I need to get out of the mindset of taking on pleasures that shut off consciousness. These are too short-lived and have far too great of consequences to continue to pursue with such verve.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Secular Humanism: Threat & Challenge Revisited
It's been ten years since I've read the book Secular Humanism: Threat and Challenge by Robert E. Webber. It's been thirty-two years since Robert E. Webber has written the book. Some of its tone seems to be as current as ever. Its rhetoric is definitely current. But, in typing the notes I've noticed a few things about my own thoughts on these topics in my current mindset. I've matured; become less naïve and developed a more nuanced view of the world. I'm not sure if that's always the best thing in the world, but it is the brute fact. But, I've become a little bit more open-minded to things as well. I think I'd be less apt to label secular humanism as hypocritical in the margins of my notes today. I might not; I once yelled at an Ayn Rand book and scared some poor Starbucks sipping soccer moms to death.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
I reject the dichotomy between science and Christianity that has plagued us since the renaissance. I accept that the Church has at times been a source of blocking progress in numerous fields of knowledge. But, I reject that it blocks progress in the fields of ethics. Ethics is a field in which progress ought not to be made.
I am no longer stand vehemently against the theory of evolution. It seems to be, at the moment, the best paradigm we posses for how man came to be in the physical state he is at the moment. It has nothing to do with his moral state though. Physical evolution cannot produce morality. But, as a Christian I am confident that whether the Genesis account of creation was supposed to be literal or figurative or something in between, it has no bearing on the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Whether God used words and instant gratification, or a form of evolution, the fact of the matter is that when God created the world He had already set into motion His plans to redeem mankind.
I am still very much against abortion except in rare circumstances. I have no problem with state sanctioned marriages because they have nothing to do with the marriage that is sacred in the Bible. The Bible puts marriage up as a union between a man, a woman and God. Secular marriage should be meaningless to the purely Christian viewpoint. Now, pastors or priests who marry someone in a non-Biblical fashion, they are going to have to answer for that some day. But, that has nothing to do with a state sanctioning.
The secularist optimistic view of man is hopelessly flawed as well. Man is inherently evil. While it is possible for the most evil of person to do something good or for less evil men to suppress their evil for awhile, that evil always lurks in the back and given the right circumstances will manifest itself. If those right circumstances happen to be when a given individual is in a powerful position, the manifestation will bring about powerful consequences. The good that even the most heinous of men possess is the remnant of the Imago Dei shining through the darkness. The difference between the Christians and the non-Christian is that darkness has been overcome by the light in a reunion with Christ. That is it.
The separation of Church and State used to be a hot topic for me. I thought it was awful that God was being blocked from public forums. The fact of the matter is though that a government cannot block God from coming into the public domain. I don't need to worry about that. God will manifest Himself whether a secularist government wants Him to or not. That isn't a battle worth fighting because it is already won. While I feel that I would be less inclined to nod my head along if I were to read this book now as I find myself agreeing on a couple of things he said about politics.
"The Church should not seek to accomplish its task in society through political power or legislative force" (Webber, 109). The Church isn't supposed to be a political vehicle. Divorce your politics from your faith. That doesn't mean accepting recent legislation as being the new ethically right standpoint. Ethics don't evolve because moral absolutes still exist, regardless of what man thinks of them. What it means is that your political agenda shouldn't influence your walk with Christ and it shouldn't move the Church in any particular way. The Church can recognize the brokenness that some secularist laws create the conditions for. But, when your political affiliation or your patriotism begins to move your walk with God or your church's agenda you can be pretty sure that you'll end up down a path that isn't authentically Christian.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
The End of Book 3
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
As I come to the end of another notebook I look back on all that I have learned and the changes that have occurred in my life. Philosophy, like everything in life is perpetually changing. Sometimes it deteriorates and regresses; sometimes it progresses and advances. Regression leads us further from God; progression draws us closer to Him. The action can be evil, the experience can be painful and yet, it still is progress if one grows closer to God. Conversely, the action can be good, and the experience pleasurable, but can be a regression if it leads one further from God. A proximity God and Christ-likeness is my aim Anything that hinders that is a regression. Anything that assists that is a progression.
Sorry, I wrote so big. I figured it was pointless to start a new book with so few pages left. In my readings recently (Rand & Russell) I have found myself ignorant of many things, but two things stand out to me:
1) My utter lack of understanding as to what exactly metaphysics is
2) Rand & Russell find mysticism reprehensible. The term has negative connotations in today's society, but I am wondering if I am a mystic in their eyes.
So marks the conclusion of Notebook #3. This book consists of notes from 4/30/06-7/20/06. I will continue with metaphysics and mysticism studies in notebook #6, page 1. Notebook #5 contains the continuance of Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" from Notebook #4. Ironically, I finished notebook #4 prior to Notebook #3. What can you do?
As I come to the end of another notebook I look back on all that I have learned and the changes that have occurred in my life. Philosophy, like everything in life is perpetually changing. Sometimes it deteriorates and regresses; sometimes it progresses and advances. Regression leads us further from God; progression draws us closer to Him. The action can be evil, the experience can be painful and yet, it still is progress if one grows closer to God. Conversely, the action can be good, and the experience pleasurable, but can be a regression if it leads one further from God. A proximity God and Christ-likeness is my aim Anything that hinders that is a regression. Anything that assists that is a progression.
Sorry, I wrote so big. I figured it was pointless to start a new book with so few pages left. In my readings recently (Rand & Russell) I have found myself ignorant of many things, but two things stand out to me:
1) My utter lack of understanding as to what exactly metaphysics is
2) Rand & Russell find mysticism reprehensible. The term has negative connotations in today's society, but I am wondering if I am a mystic in their eyes.
So marks the conclusion of Notebook #3. This book consists of notes from 4/30/06-7/20/06. I will continue with metaphysics and mysticism studies in notebook #6, page 1. Notebook #5 contains the continuance of Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy" from Notebook #4. Ironically, I finished notebook #4 prior to Notebook #3. What can you do?
The Argument from Intimidation
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
The Argument from Intimidation
Ayn Rand
Linehan - Thank God this is my last essay to read in this book! Rand's philosophy has made me weary of philosophy, whereas most increase my appetite for it, especially philosophies I dislike. But Rand's is like a burden on my back. I know that to remove the burden I must continue to the end. Gladly, this is the end (for now)!
The argument from intimidation is not really an argument, but a psychological pressure which stalls debate.
This pressure resembles the fallacy, ad hominem. Ad hominem is Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false.
The 'ad hominem' does two wrong things in this case.
1) Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument
2) The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
The argument from intimidation usually presents itself as: only an evil person would believe such-and-such.
The tone of a voice usually indicates this argument. It is a tone of scorn or belligerent incredulity.
The argument from intimidation has no real facts or arguments, only volume. The argument shows intellectual impotence.
The psychological source of the argument from intimidation is social metaphysics. Social metaphysicians regard the consciousness of other men superior to his own and to the facts of reality.
It is an anti-self view which fears moral rebuttal from others. A social metaphysician will forsake reality rather than be found immoral by another man.
A social metaphysician bows to the pressure when confronted with a moral sanction.
This form of terror is unknown to 'psychologically healthy men'.
Linehan - If the fear of being disliked, the trademark of 'social metaphysicians', is a trait of psychological unhealthy, then only megalomaniacs are psychologically healthy. This seems a bit absurd, but fits into the Objectivist mentality nicely.
Arguments from intimidation prey on the weak-minded, those who are paralyzed by fear or the young and innocent.
College professors often use the argument from intimidation to stifle independent thought.
Linehan -
Thankfully, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is done. The Objectivist ethic produces self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who denounce self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who have power. The difference between the objectivists and who they condemn is that those they condemn are in power. Rand figures that since all men wish to be megalomaniacs by nature and that 'altruism' or various forms of it, disapprove of megalomaniacs, then altruism must be bad. She doesn't really have many sound arguments other then the argument from intimidation, which she masks as 'high-minded intellectualism'. All that she and Branden condemn in her book are linguistically polished as her values. Most of Rand's work is despicable, but she does make some good points:
1) First and foremost she is correct in believing that man is and end and valuable.
2) She makes some good arguments on the role of government.
Otherwise she has left a bad taste in my mouth. But, that is mainly because she betrays her notion of man being valuable as an end. There is no such thing as potential value of men. Either they are valuable as an end or not.
Rand is inconsistent. Worse, she is wholly despicable.
The Argument from Intimidation
Ayn Rand
Linehan - Thank God this is my last essay to read in this book! Rand's philosophy has made me weary of philosophy, whereas most increase my appetite for it, especially philosophies I dislike. But Rand's is like a burden on my back. I know that to remove the burden I must continue to the end. Gladly, this is the end (for now)!
The argument from intimidation is not really an argument, but a psychological pressure which stalls debate.
This pressure resembles the fallacy, ad hominem. Ad hominem is Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false.
The 'ad hominem' does two wrong things in this case.
1) Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument
2) The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
The argument from intimidation usually presents itself as: only an evil person would believe such-and-such.
The tone of a voice usually indicates this argument. It is a tone of scorn or belligerent incredulity.
The argument from intimidation has no real facts or arguments, only volume. The argument shows intellectual impotence.
The psychological source of the argument from intimidation is social metaphysics. Social metaphysicians regard the consciousness of other men superior to his own and to the facts of reality.
It is an anti-self view which fears moral rebuttal from others. A social metaphysician will forsake reality rather than be found immoral by another man.
A social metaphysician bows to the pressure when confronted with a moral sanction.
This form of terror is unknown to 'psychologically healthy men'.
Linehan - If the fear of being disliked, the trademark of 'social metaphysicians', is a trait of psychological unhealthy, then only megalomaniacs are psychologically healthy. This seems a bit absurd, but fits into the Objectivist mentality nicely.
Arguments from intimidation prey on the weak-minded, those who are paralyzed by fear or the young and innocent.
College professors often use the argument from intimidation to stifle independent thought.
Linehan -
Thankfully, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is done. The Objectivist ethic produces self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who denounce self-righteous, self-assured, pompous asses who have power. The difference between the objectivists and who they condemn is that those they condemn are in power. Rand figures that since all men wish to be megalomaniacs by nature and that 'altruism' or various forms of it, disapprove of megalomaniacs, then altruism must be bad. She doesn't really have many sound arguments other then the argument from intimidation, which she masks as 'high-minded intellectualism'. All that she and Branden condemn in her book are linguistically polished as her values. Most of Rand's work is despicable, but she does make some good points:
1) First and foremost she is correct in believing that man is and end and valuable.
2) She makes some good arguments on the role of government.
Otherwise she has left a bad taste in my mouth. But, that is mainly because she betrays her notion of man being valuable as an end. There is no such thing as potential value of men. Either they are valuable as an end or not.
Rand is inconsistent. Worse, she is wholly despicable.
Counterfeit Individualism
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
Counterfeit Individualism
Nathaniel Branden
Individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that man is an end, not a means and that man should think and judge independently, "valuing nothing higher than the sovereignty of his intellect" (Rand, 135).
Individualists never sacrifice themselves to others, nor sacrifice others to themselves.
First and foremost, an individualist is a man of reason.
Individualism is never subjectivism.
Counterfeit individualism exclaims 'His right because I feel it'. Authentic individualism exclaims, 'It is right because I see in reason that it is right'.
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
Counterfeit Individualism
Nathaniel Branden
Individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights, the principle that man is an end, not a means and that man should think and judge independently, "valuing nothing higher than the sovereignty of his intellect" (Rand, 135).
Individualists never sacrifice themselves to others, nor sacrifice others to themselves.
First and foremost, an individualist is a man of reason.
Individualism is never subjectivism.
Counterfeit individualism exclaims 'His right because I feel it'. Authentic individualism exclaims, 'It is right because I see in reason that it is right'.
Racism - Ayn Rand
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
Racism
Ayn Rand
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man's genetic lineage - the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry" (Rand, 126).
Racism claims that man's convictions, values and character are formed by physical forces outside of his control, prior to birth.
Racism invalidates man's ration faculty.
Racism negates man's reason and choice, replacing them with chemical predestination.
There is no such thing as a racial or collective mind. There is no such thing as a collective racial achievement.
Individual can only have minds and are capable of achievement.
Culture is the sum of intellectual achievements of individual men.
Racism has one root - the racist's sense of his own inferiority.
Racism, like all other forms of collectivism, is a quest for the unearned.
Racism is more prevalent in persons who have no achievements of their own.
"Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern Racists; observe that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters" (Rand, 128).
Linehan - ironically, this statement is the 'high-minded' racism employed by pompous, self-ascribed intellectuals to denounce the 'low-minded' racism. If man is an individual as Rand claims, then his racism is his own individual racism. The fact that it is more prevalent among 'poor white trash' than their 'intellectual betters' demands that men are collective by nature. Now, I do believe that it is obvious that a lack of education is a breeding ground for racism, but education does not make all people who are educated 'intellectual betters'. High-minded racism is as low as low-minded racism. Both are a scourge.
"There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism" (Rand, 129).
Capitalism is the only system capable of penalizing all forms of irrationality, including racism.
The more free a society is (the more laissez-faire capitalistic it is) the less racism there is.
Racism
Ayn Rand
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man's genetic lineage - the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry" (Rand, 126).
Racism claims that man's convictions, values and character are formed by physical forces outside of his control, prior to birth.
Racism invalidates man's ration faculty.
Racism negates man's reason and choice, replacing them with chemical predestination.
There is no such thing as a racial or collective mind. There is no such thing as a collective racial achievement.
Individual can only have minds and are capable of achievement.
Culture is the sum of intellectual achievements of individual men.
Racism has one root - the racist's sense of his own inferiority.
Racism, like all other forms of collectivism, is a quest for the unearned.
Racism is more prevalent in persons who have no achievements of their own.
"Observe the hysterical intensity of the Southern Racists; observe that racism is much more prevalent among the poor white trash than among their intellectual betters" (Rand, 128).
Linehan - ironically, this statement is the 'high-minded' racism employed by pompous, self-ascribed intellectuals to denounce the 'low-minded' racism. If man is an individual as Rand claims, then his racism is his own individual racism. The fact that it is more prevalent among 'poor white trash' than their 'intellectual betters' demands that men are collective by nature. Now, I do believe that it is obvious that a lack of education is a breeding ground for racism, but education does not make all people who are educated 'intellectual betters'. High-minded racism is as low as low-minded racism. Both are a scourge.
"There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism" (Rand, 129).
Capitalism is the only system capable of penalizing all forms of irrationality, including racism.
The more free a society is (the more laissez-faire capitalistic it is) the less racism there is.
The Divine Right of Stagnation
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Divine Right of Stagnation
Nathaniel Branden
Man survives by transforming his environment through productive work, not adapting to an environment like an animal.
Life is a process of self-sustaining action; humans do so through thought and production.
Man's need of thought and effort is never diminished or satisfied.
Constant growth is a psychological need of man's.
The doctrine of divine stagnation is letting men keep their jobs even though they are unnecessary, promoting men on superiority rather than performance; it is punishing the more productive workers and rewarding the less productive ones.
Capitalism is, by nature, a constant process of growth. Neither capitalism nor reality rewards or is fit for stagnation.
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Divine Right of Stagnation
Nathaniel Branden
Man survives by transforming his environment through productive work, not adapting to an environment like an animal.
Life is a process of self-sustaining action; humans do so through thought and production.
Man's need of thought and effort is never diminished or satisfied.
Constant growth is a psychological need of man's.
The doctrine of divine stagnation is letting men keep their jobs even though they are unnecessary, promoting men on superiority rather than performance; it is punishing the more productive workers and rewarding the less productive ones.
Capitalism is, by nature, a constant process of growth. Neither capitalism nor reality rewards or is fit for stagnation.
Government Financing in a Free Society
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
Government Financing in a Free Society
"In a fully free society, taxation... would be voluntary" (Rand, 116).
Voluntary governmental financing is not plausible today. It would be the last step, not first, in forming a fully free society.
Voluntary government financing rests on a number of premises:
1) The government is not the owner of the citizens' income and, therefore cannot hold a blank check on that income
2) The nature of proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited.
3) The government must be a servant to the people, not the people to the government
The government must be viewed by the people as a paid servant for voluntary funding to work.
The pay that one would give to the government would be proportional to the pay that the individual earns, simply because those who earn more use more government services in their personal transactions, i.e. A rich man would want to pay for better police protection than a poor man because a criminal would want to rob a rich man rather than a poor one.
Government Financing in a Free Society
"In a fully free society, taxation... would be voluntary" (Rand, 116).
Voluntary governmental financing is not plausible today. It would be the last step, not first, in forming a fully free society.
Voluntary government financing rests on a number of premises:
1) The government is not the owner of the citizens' income and, therefore cannot hold a blank check on that income
2) The nature of proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited.
3) The government must be a servant to the people, not the people to the government
The government must be viewed by the people as a paid servant for voluntary funding to work.
The pay that one would give to the government would be proportional to the pay that the individual earns, simply because those who earn more use more government services in their personal transactions, i.e. A rich man would want to pay for better police protection than a poor man because a criminal would want to rob a rich man rather than a poor one.
The Nature of Government
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
The Nature of Government
Ayn Rand
Linehan - with all the disagreements I have with Rand, our differences on the role of government seem to differ in only a minor way.
A government holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct.
Man needs government because a social environment is most conducive to the acquisition of knowledge.
Knowledge and trade are two great values gained through society.
Not all societies afford this, only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive and free society afford trade and knowledge.
Man's rights are only violated by physical force.
A government is to keep physical force from being implemented in social contracts or arrangements.
But, even though initiating physical force is a moral evil, retaliation with physical force is a moral imperative.
Retaliatory force requires objective evidence for it to be used. Otherwise retaliation is merely a lynch mob.
"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control" (Rand, 109).
The difference between individuals and government is that individuals may do anything except what is forbidden by law, whereas a government can only do what it is legally permitted to do.
A government derives its power from the covenant of the people.
The proper function of the government fall into three broad categories:
1) The police
2) The armed forces
3) The law courts
The Nature of Government
Ayn Rand
Linehan - with all the disagreements I have with Rand, our differences on the role of government seem to differ in only a minor way.
A government holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct.
Man needs government because a social environment is most conducive to the acquisition of knowledge.
Knowledge and trade are two great values gained through society.
Not all societies afford this, only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive and free society afford trade and knowledge.
Man's rights are only violated by physical force.
A government is to keep physical force from being implemented in social contracts or arrangements.
But, even though initiating physical force is a moral evil, retaliation with physical force is a moral imperative.
Retaliatory force requires objective evidence for it to be used. Otherwise retaliation is merely a lynch mob.
"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control" (Rand, 109).
The difference between individuals and government is that individuals may do anything except what is forbidden by law, whereas a government can only do what it is legally permitted to do.
A government derives its power from the covenant of the people.
The proper function of the government fall into three broad categories:
1) The police
2) The armed forces
3) The law courts
Collectivized Rights
(Originally written July 20, 2006 in Book 3)
Collectivized Rights
Ayn Rand
Individuals need a moral code to survive.
A society is a group of individuals.
Societies need moral principles so that they can organize a system consistent with man's nature.
"What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics" (Rand, 101).
Individuals are the only beings capable of having rights. The expression of 'collective rights' is a contradiction of terms.
A collective is a group of individuals and can only have the rights of the individuals who freely join the collective.
Joining a society neither provides nor negates rights of individuals.
Collectivized Rights
Ayn Rand
Individuals need a moral code to survive.
A society is a group of individuals.
Societies need moral principles so that they can organize a system consistent with man's nature.
"What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics" (Rand, 101).
Individuals are the only beings capable of having rights. The expression of 'collective rights' is a contradiction of terms.
A collective is a group of individuals and can only have the rights of the individuals who freely join the collective.
Joining a society neither provides nor negates rights of individuals.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Man's Rights
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
Man's Rights
Ayn Rand
Rights are a moral concept that provides a logical transition from the guiding principles of actions and the guiding principles of relationships.
"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" (Rand, 93).
A right is a moral principle that sanctions freedom of action.
There is only one fundamental right - the right to life. All others are derivative of this right.
While the right to life is the source of all rights, the right to property is the implementation.
The right to whatever is a right to action, not a right to an object.
The concept of individuals is new in human history.
The source of man's rights is not divine or congressional law, but the law of identity.
The only purpose of the government is to protect individual rights.
Altruism is incompatible with freedom, capitalism and individual rights.
A government is a larger threat to individual rights than any criminal.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system capable of advocating for man's rights.
Man's Rights
Ayn Rand
Rights are a moral concept that provides a logical transition from the guiding principles of actions and the guiding principles of relationships.
"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" (Rand, 93).
A right is a moral principle that sanctions freedom of action.
There is only one fundamental right - the right to life. All others are derivative of this right.
While the right to life is the source of all rights, the right to property is the implementation.
The right to whatever is a right to action, not a right to an object.
The concept of individuals is new in human history.
The source of man's rights is not divine or congressional law, but the law of identity.
The only purpose of the government is to protect individual rights.
Altruism is incompatible with freedom, capitalism and individual rights.
A government is a larger threat to individual rights than any criminal.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system capable of advocating for man's rights.
The Monument Builders
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
The Monument Builders
Ayn Rand
Socialism denies individual property rights.
Socialism brings economic paralysis, not the prosperity it promised.
Socialism produced the Cold War, rather than the peace it promised.
Socialism (and liberal apologists) condone the abolition of freedom and rights, the abolition of personal property, execution without trial, torture, slave-labor, and other atrocities in the name of 'humanity'.
Power-lust is the motivation of the socialist elites.
The Monument Builders
Ayn Rand
Socialism denies individual property rights.
Socialism brings economic paralysis, not the prosperity it promised.
Socialism produced the Cold War, rather than the peace it promised.
Socialism (and liberal apologists) condone the abolition of freedom and rights, the abolition of personal property, execution without trial, torture, slave-labor, and other atrocities in the name of 'humanity'.
Power-lust is the motivation of the socialist elites.
Collectivized Ethics
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
Collectivized Ethics
Ayn Rand
What will happen to the poor in an objectivist society? "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped" (Rand, 80).
"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society - as an organized political system - has no rights in the matter at all" (Rand, 80).
Altruism renders men incapable of determining individual value or worth. Altruism focuses on hypothetical men, not the real individual humans.
Collectivized Ethics
Ayn Rand
What will happen to the poor in an objectivist society? "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped" (Rand, 80).
"Only individual men have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others; society - as an organized political system - has no rights in the matter at all" (Rand, 80).
Altruism renders men incapable of determining individual value or worth. Altruism focuses on hypothetical men, not the real individual humans.
The Cult of Moral Grayness
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
The Cult of Moral Grayness
Ayn Rand
The moral bankruptcy of today's culture is personified in the statement: "There are no black and whites, there are only grays". This proclamation of only grays existing extends to persons, actions, principles and morality in general.
The nation of no black and white, only gray is full of contradictions. "Foremost among them is the fallacy of the stolen concept. IF there is no black and white, the can be no gray - since gray is the mixture of the two" (Rand, 75).
Ha! That is funny!
Before something can be called gray, black and white have to be determined.
Man must ascertain what is good and what is evil. After doing so, there is no justification for choosing to act on a combination of the two.
If a moral code is impossible to practice then it is called black. Altruism falls under this category.
If a man fails to determine what is good in a difficult scenario or makes an honest mistake he is morally 'white'.
"Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience" (Rand, 76).
Linehan - Wrong. Infallibility and omniscience are required because the moral person must be perfect. But, since man is neither infallible nor omniscient it is impossible for him to be perfect, rendering him incapable of being moral. Luckily, there is the gift of grace and forgiveness in God and even in man.
Evasion of knowledge is morally black, not gray.
Morality only pertains to his choices or free-will.
Linehan - incorrect. Man's born immoral and evil. If there are no innate ideas then isn't every one morally grey? Because if there is no absolute white or absolute black known at birth (or at least present at birth) doesn't that mean that man necessarily is born neutral or gray.
Moral grayness is a revolt against moral values and the absolutism of reality.
The Cult of Moral Grayness
Ayn Rand
The moral bankruptcy of today's culture is personified in the statement: "There are no black and whites, there are only grays". This proclamation of only grays existing extends to persons, actions, principles and morality in general.
The nation of no black and white, only gray is full of contradictions. "Foremost among them is the fallacy of the stolen concept. IF there is no black and white, the can be no gray - since gray is the mixture of the two" (Rand, 75).
Ha! That is funny!
Before something can be called gray, black and white have to be determined.
Man must ascertain what is good and what is evil. After doing so, there is no justification for choosing to act on a combination of the two.
If a moral code is impossible to practice then it is called black. Altruism falls under this category.
If a man fails to determine what is good in a difficult scenario or makes an honest mistake he is morally 'white'.
"Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience" (Rand, 76).
Linehan - Wrong. Infallibility and omniscience are required because the moral person must be perfect. But, since man is neither infallible nor omniscient it is impossible for him to be perfect, rendering him incapable of being moral. Luckily, there is the gift of grace and forgiveness in God and even in man.
Evasion of knowledge is morally black, not gray.
Morality only pertains to his choices or free-will.
Linehan - incorrect. Man's born immoral and evil. If there are no innate ideas then isn't every one morally grey? Because if there is no absolute white or absolute black known at birth (or at least present at birth) doesn't that mean that man necessarily is born neutral or gray.
Moral grayness is a revolt against moral values and the absolutism of reality.
How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?
One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
Nothing corrupts men more than moral agnosticism. Moral agnosticism holds that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that goods exist regardless of good and evil.
Judging morality is an enormous responsibility. To judge one must have 'unimpeachable character', 'un-breached integrity' and not let emotion play in the judgment.
A man is to be judged by the judgments he makes.
The fear of being judged is why most men wish to maintain a neutral moral stance. No moral neutrality is possible.
"Judge, and be prepared to judge" (Rand, 72).
"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard" (Rand, 72).
But just because we are to be judges, does not entail a responsibility to be a missionary aimed at saving everyone's soul.
Linehan - just when I was beginning to agree...
One doesn't have to break out in debate at every moment, but one cannot remain silent when one's rational principles are attacked.
Moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progressive antagonism for virtue.
Virtuous people are treats to moral neutralists. They become exposed in their hypocrisy and fear their system can be toppled.
"An irrational society is a society of moral cowards - of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals" (Rand, 74).
Linehan - In this virtual desert of useless, harmful words, I find an oasis in this essay. I agree with Rand on virtually every point, but struggle with two things, one implicit and one explicit. The explicit disagreement is the responsibility we have to others who are morally neutral or morally evil. Rand maintains that we needn't be missionaries to them. I contend that if morality is worth anything then it demands that we serve as missionaries and work to help others find salvation. The implicit disagreement lies in what we are to condemn. Rand is too dismissive of people she calls 'irrational'. She condemns the irrational men, not the irrationality of men. I hold that it is the vice that we ought to condemn, not the partaker of any specific vice. Morality is wonderful, but useless without someone to produce it. Man is the ultimate value on earth, morality is the tool that leads us to that conclusion.
How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society?
One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.
Nothing corrupts men more than moral agnosticism. Moral agnosticism holds that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that goods exist regardless of good and evil.
Judging morality is an enormous responsibility. To judge one must have 'unimpeachable character', 'un-breached integrity' and not let emotion play in the judgment.
A man is to be judged by the judgments he makes.
The fear of being judged is why most men wish to maintain a neutral moral stance. No moral neutrality is possible.
"Judge, and be prepared to judge" (Rand, 72).
"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard" (Rand, 72).
But just because we are to be judges, does not entail a responsibility to be a missionary aimed at saving everyone's soul.
Linehan - just when I was beginning to agree...
One doesn't have to break out in debate at every moment, but one cannot remain silent when one's rational principles are attacked.
Moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progressive antagonism for virtue.
Virtuous people are treats to moral neutralists. They become exposed in their hypocrisy and fear their system can be toppled.
"An irrational society is a society of moral cowards - of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles and goals" (Rand, 74).
Linehan - In this virtual desert of useless, harmful words, I find an oasis in this essay. I agree with Rand on virtually every point, but struggle with two things, one implicit and one explicit. The explicit disagreement is the responsibility we have to others who are morally neutral or morally evil. Rand maintains that we needn't be missionaries to them. I contend that if morality is worth anything then it demands that we serve as missionaries and work to help others find salvation. The implicit disagreement lies in what we are to condemn. Rand is too dismissive of people she calls 'irrational'. She condemns the irrational men, not the irrationality of men. I hold that it is the vice that we ought to condemn, not the partaker of any specific vice. Morality is wonderful, but useless without someone to produce it. Man is the ultimate value on earth, morality is the tool that leads us to that conclusion.
Doesn't Life Require Compromises
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
Doesn't Life Require Compromises
Ayn Rand
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions" (Rand, 68).
Compromise today is used as a complete surrender of principles. It is a failure to recognize the importance of principle rather than a specific particular.
Integrity is loyalty to one's principles, not loyalty to any concrete whim.
Doesn't Life Require Compromises
Ayn Rand
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions" (Rand, 68).
Compromise today is used as a complete surrender of principles. It is a failure to recognize the importance of principle rather than a specific particular.
Integrity is loyalty to one's principles, not loyalty to any concrete whim.
The Psychology of Pleasure
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Psychology of Pleasure
Nathaniel Branden
Pleasure is not a luxury, it is a 'profound psychological need'.
Linehan - Instantly I brace myself for anger.
Pleasure is the metaphysical reward for success in life.
By enjoyment man experiences the value of life and understands that life is worth living.
"Pleasure or enjoyment is at once an emotional payment for successful action and an incentive to continue acting" (Rand, 61).
Pleasure is the feeling of being in control of one's own existence. Pain is the feeling of being helpless and not in control of one's existence.
Man's values reflect his or her conscious or subconscious view of themselves. They reflect two things:
1) Their self-esteem
2) His or her view of the universe, either it is benevolent or malevolent
There are five broad areas where enjoyment can be experienced (but they are interconnected)
1) In productive work
2) Human relationships
3) Art
4) Recreation
5) Sex
Productive work is the most fundamental and provides man with:
1) A sense of control over his existence
2) A sense of personal efficacy
3) Purpose
A life without purpose dooms man to feel out of control in his own existence. It makes him feel inadequate and unfit to exist and thus renders him incapable of enjoying existence.
Work can be looked upon in various ways:
1) One can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoying a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem.
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness like alcoholic stupors, women and drugs.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek destroy others as pleasure They are parasites who live off the work of others.
Pleasure is experienced in various degrees. Only when a man uses his conscious life in the proper way will he experience pleasure at its pinnacle. Absence of fear or struggle is not this type, nor is pleasure through destroying consciousness.
The desire for pleasure is the desire to control reality in the rational man. The neurotic desire for pleasure is the desire to escape from reality.
Linehan - There can only be neurotic pleasure then in movies, books, art or music.
Pride is the greatest pleasure of all.
Pride is the admiration of one's own work. Admiration is of someone else's work.
The union of pride and admiration is romantic love.
The celebration of romantic love is sex.
I am starting to really become annoyed with Rand and Branden. Their 'high morality' is merely immorality presented as power. We are powerful enough to control reality. Firstly, they are not existentialists, so it is not an assumption of controlling one's own reality, which I would grant to to an extent. No, they claim to have the power to control reality itself. They are absurdly mistaken. Secondly, they are utterly inconsistent. But since it would be impossible to truly act on their maxims, inconsistencies are to be expected. I really want to finish this book and be done with their bullshit for a while. It's really starting to irk me.
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Psychology of Pleasure
Nathaniel Branden
Pleasure is not a luxury, it is a 'profound psychological need'.
Linehan - Instantly I brace myself for anger.
Pleasure is the metaphysical reward for success in life.
By enjoyment man experiences the value of life and understands that life is worth living.
"Pleasure or enjoyment is at once an emotional payment for successful action and an incentive to continue acting" (Rand, 61).
Pleasure is the feeling of being in control of one's own existence. Pain is the feeling of being helpless and not in control of one's existence.
Man's values reflect his or her conscious or subconscious view of themselves. They reflect two things:
1) Their self-esteem
2) His or her view of the universe, either it is benevolent or malevolent
There are five broad areas where enjoyment can be experienced (but they are interconnected)
1) In productive work
2) Human relationships
3) Art
4) Recreation
5) Sex
Productive work is the most fundamental and provides man with:
1) A sense of control over his existence
2) A sense of personal efficacy
3) Purpose
A life without purpose dooms man to feel out of control in his own existence. It makes him feel inadequate and unfit to exist and thus renders him incapable of enjoying existence.
Work can be looked upon in various ways:
1) One can find profound pleasure in work and will never cease to learn, to think and to achieve.
2) One can find pleasure in working in routines and enjoying a daze-like life. He sees happiness as being free from challenge. He has low self-esteem.
3) One who cannot find pleasure in work and works only for money to buy pleasures that shut off consciousness like alcoholic stupors, women and drugs.
4) Those who do not work productively but seek destroy others as pleasure They are parasites who live off the work of others.
Pleasure is experienced in various degrees. Only when a man uses his conscious life in the proper way will he experience pleasure at its pinnacle. Absence of fear or struggle is not this type, nor is pleasure through destroying consciousness.
The desire for pleasure is the desire to control reality in the rational man. The neurotic desire for pleasure is the desire to escape from reality.
Linehan - There can only be neurotic pleasure then in movies, books, art or music.
Pride is the greatest pleasure of all.
Pride is the admiration of one's own work. Admiration is of someone else's work.
The union of pride and admiration is romantic love.
The celebration of romantic love is sex.
I am starting to really become annoyed with Rand and Branden. Their 'high morality' is merely immorality presented as power. We are powerful enough to control reality. Firstly, they are not existentialists, so it is not an assumption of controlling one's own reality, which I would grant to to an extent. No, they claim to have the power to control reality itself. They are absurdly mistaken. Secondly, they are utterly inconsistent. But since it would be impossible to truly act on their maxims, inconsistencies are to be expected. I really want to finish this book and be done with their bullshit for a while. It's really starting to irk me.
Isn't Everyone Selfish?
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
Isn't Everyone Selfish?
by Nathaniel Branden
Linehan - If this essay follows the premise this title entails it will have the same intellectual worth as a child saying, "I have to have those jeans, everyone has them!" It would have to follow this line of thinking, "everyone is doing it, therefore I should". It would be so absurd to adopt this as a standard. R might actually laugh out loud, rather than scream at this book (as I have regularly done).
Selfishness vs. self-sacrifice arises in an ethical context. It asks the question - Who is to be the beneficiary of his actions? One's own self or someone else?
Egoism holds that man is an end in himself; altruism holds that man is a means to the ends of others.
Selfishness entails:
1) A hierarchy of values set by the standard of one's self-interests
2) The refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one or a non-value
Genuinely selfish people choose their goals based on reason alone.
Since rational men's interest do not clash, other men benefit from a man's rational act.
Men who die for their wife's sake do so only in a self-interested way. There is no sacrifice here. They simply choose to die based on a set of values. Life, post-death of man's wife has less value to them then death, so in their rational hierarchy they must choose death.
Linehan - Absurd, utterly and completely absurd thinking.
The selfishness or unselfishness of an action is not determined by the feelings of the actor. it is determined objectively.
Emotions and desires are not causeless, irreducible primaries.
"It is only the legacy of mysticism that permits men to imagine that they are still speaking meaningfully when they declare that one can seek one's happiness in the renunciation of one's happiness" (Rand, 60).
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
Isn't Everyone Selfish?
by Nathaniel Branden
Linehan - If this essay follows the premise this title entails it will have the same intellectual worth as a child saying, "I have to have those jeans, everyone has them!" It would have to follow this line of thinking, "everyone is doing it, therefore I should". It would be so absurd to adopt this as a standard. R might actually laugh out loud, rather than scream at this book (as I have regularly done).
Selfishness vs. self-sacrifice arises in an ethical context. It asks the question - Who is to be the beneficiary of his actions? One's own self or someone else?
Egoism holds that man is an end in himself; altruism holds that man is a means to the ends of others.
Selfishness entails:
1) A hierarchy of values set by the standard of one's self-interests
2) The refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one or a non-value
Genuinely selfish people choose their goals based on reason alone.
Since rational men's interest do not clash, other men benefit from a man's rational act.
Men who die for their wife's sake do so only in a self-interested way. There is no sacrifice here. They simply choose to die based on a set of values. Life, post-death of man's wife has less value to them then death, so in their rational hierarchy they must choose death.
Linehan - Absurd, utterly and completely absurd thinking.
The selfishness or unselfishness of an action is not determined by the feelings of the actor. it is determined objectively.
Emotions and desires are not causeless, irreducible primaries.
"It is only the legacy of mysticism that permits men to imagine that they are still speaking meaningfully when they declare that one can seek one's happiness in the renunciation of one's happiness" (Rand, 60).
The Conflict of Men's Interests - 2
(Originally written July 18, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Conflict of Men's Interests
By taking something out of context man engages in a powerful psychological tool for evasion. This is called context-dropping. There are two major ways of doing this: 1) Range, 2) Means
A rational man considers his desires in the context of a whole lifetime. He does not sacrifice long-term value for short-term.
A rational man considers the means to an end and never holds a desire or pursues a goal which he cannot achieve by his own effort, directly or indirectly.
Trade facilitates this indirect means of accomplishment.
Rational men do not want or take anything more or less then what they deserve.
Trade value is determined solely by a free-market, not any individual's value system.
In trade, one relies on the rationality of every man.
A rational man never seeks or desires the unearned.
A rational man never lowers his standards to appeal to this irrationality, stupidity or dishonesty of others because it is suicidal.
Since both victory and defeat are possible in every situation, no one victory or defeat can be a tool of judgment.
Responsibility is the form of intellectual responsibility that most people evade. "They evade the responsibility of judging the social world" (Rand, 53). They believe the world is not of their making and thus can only adjust to the controlling world.
A 'metaphysical humility' is believing in interests must be pursued by the means of 'somehow'. It believes that man did not create the world and simply lives here. It is a parasitic point of view. 'Somehow always means somebody'. Men of this mindset shirk responsibility of the means to their ends and dump it on someone else.
Since rational men know that all goals and interests are accomplished through their own effort, effort is essential to the rational man.
The 'humility metaphysics' parasites are the only ones who view every competitor as a threat. Rational men reject this because they know that there is no such thing as living by luck and no such thing as an 'only chance' or single opportunity.
Competition in a free society produces innumerable chances. Effort is needed to pursue these chances.
"He does not regard any concrete, specific goal or value as irreplaceable. He knows that only persons are irreplaceable - only those one loves" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - This is very, very cruel and inhumane. People are irreplaceably, but only the ones you love. Therefore, all other people are simply usable, replaceable spokes in our own wheel. It is also inconsistent because if a value is truly good as a long-term value, then it is irreplaceable.
Love is like all other values, it is a response to be earned.
Romantic love is not a competition. "If two men are in love with the same woman, what she feels for either of them is not determined by what she feels for the other and is not taken away from him. If she chooses one of them the loser could not have had what the winner has earned" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - If it is a truly free society in which love is earned like this then either man can 'earn' this love. This is completely contrary to Rand's theories. If the loser had no chance of having what the winner 'earned' then the winner is determined to win by something other than his own effort. Determinism cannot fit into Rand's theory, yet here it is in black and white.
"Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - If anything shows the absurdity of Rand's theories, it is this quote.
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
The Conflict of Men's Interests
By taking something out of context man engages in a powerful psychological tool for evasion. This is called context-dropping. There are two major ways of doing this: 1) Range, 2) Means
A rational man considers his desires in the context of a whole lifetime. He does not sacrifice long-term value for short-term.
A rational man considers the means to an end and never holds a desire or pursues a goal which he cannot achieve by his own effort, directly or indirectly.
Trade facilitates this indirect means of accomplishment.
Rational men do not want or take anything more or less then what they deserve.
Trade value is determined solely by a free-market, not any individual's value system.
In trade, one relies on the rationality of every man.
A rational man never seeks or desires the unearned.
A rational man never lowers his standards to appeal to this irrationality, stupidity or dishonesty of others because it is suicidal.
Since both victory and defeat are possible in every situation, no one victory or defeat can be a tool of judgment.
Responsibility is the form of intellectual responsibility that most people evade. "They evade the responsibility of judging the social world" (Rand, 53). They believe the world is not of their making and thus can only adjust to the controlling world.
A 'metaphysical humility' is believing in interests must be pursued by the means of 'somehow'. It believes that man did not create the world and simply lives here. It is a parasitic point of view. 'Somehow always means somebody'. Men of this mindset shirk responsibility of the means to their ends and dump it on someone else.
Since rational men know that all goals and interests are accomplished through their own effort, effort is essential to the rational man.
The 'humility metaphysics' parasites are the only ones who view every competitor as a threat. Rational men reject this because they know that there is no such thing as living by luck and no such thing as an 'only chance' or single opportunity.
Competition in a free society produces innumerable chances. Effort is needed to pursue these chances.
"He does not regard any concrete, specific goal or value as irreplaceable. He knows that only persons are irreplaceable - only those one loves" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - This is very, very cruel and inhumane. People are irreplaceably, but only the ones you love. Therefore, all other people are simply usable, replaceable spokes in our own wheel. It is also inconsistent because if a value is truly good as a long-term value, then it is irreplaceable.
Love is like all other values, it is a response to be earned.
Romantic love is not a competition. "If two men are in love with the same woman, what she feels for either of them is not determined by what she feels for the other and is not taken away from him. If she chooses one of them the loser could not have had what the winner has earned" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - If it is a truly free society in which love is earned like this then either man can 'earn' this love. This is completely contrary to Rand's theories. If the loser had no chance of having what the winner 'earned' then the winner is determined to win by something other than his own effort. Determinism cannot fit into Rand's theory, yet here it is in black and white.
"Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning" (Rand, 55).
Linehan - If anything shows the absurdity of Rand's theories, it is this quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)