Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I also was puzzled by that sentence. The only thing I could think of was that he was saying that if the interaction among men was “random” (perhaps meaning only very occasionally and of limited significance as in passing each other at a distance in the woods) it would never occur to them to address how they should interact with each other ie the issue of rights. It is not that rights would not exist but rather that it would not need to be addressed in such a primitive state. It is only when their interactions became significant enough to impact their lives that it would occur them to establish rules about how they should act ie a social system. Make any sense?
I have read and thought about the libertarian (Rothbardian) argument that individuals should have the freedom to choose which defence agency they want for protection of their rights. To try and resolve it I engaged in a “thought experiment” a bit similar to that which Rand mentions ie the competing agencies showing up at your front door following a dispute with your neighbour. To take the libertarian argument to its logical conclusion, each individual would presumably also have the freedom to not contract with any defence agency ie would have the right to individual self-defence. Obviously this would result in pure anarchy – the opposite of a society in which individual rights are protected by objective law. Based on this I rejected the Rothbardian argument and agreed with Rand’s position of the need for a limited constitutional government with a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in the given geographic area.
Andrea, Peikoff addressed this a bit on pages 285-286 of OPAR and similarly Ayn Rand wrote an essay titled “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” (in “The Virtue of Selfishness”).I believe both were saying that you have no obligation to reveal your thoughts to others if you as the dissenter are “in the power of the irrational” and doing so would risk your career, income, school grades, etc. Otherwise, if your silence would be taken as agreement with something you think is wrong, you should at least say “I disagree”.
Hi Seamus. Here would be my answers:
1. Yes, plants value in the sense of acting to stay alive eg automtically seeking water, minerals and sunshine needed to survive.
2. Materialists consider living organisms to be “inanimate mechanisms” in that they would not recognize the facts of self-generated (goal directed) action. I believe “mechanism” implies something acting in response to things outside itself. If so, an “animate mechanism” would be a contradiction as organisms take self-directed actions. What would be the goal of the machine you mention?
3. Yes, awareness is the same as consciousness – Rand says consciousness is “the faculty of awareness”.
4. The “a priori deductions” Peikoff mentions on page 202 disregard the facts supporting the view that human consciousness is individual.I believe a “rationalization” is a type of evasion.I don’t think we need an additional concept. I believe the key is that, as you point out, “truth” is an epistemological concept in that it is always based on the context of all that is known at the time. At one time, all known facts supported that all type A blood was compatible with other type A blood and thus it was true in the context of those facts.Later, based on the discovery of additional facts, the truth had to be qualified as you stated.All true statements must be understood as being qualified by “based on what we know at this time” since, as Peikoff noted, all truth is contextual. To demand that some truths be without such a context is to require a base of omniscience which is an impossibility.In the Ayn Rand Lexicon “truth” is defined as “the recognition of reality” meaning it is a relationship between a human mind and reality.
I doubt if it would be so explicit as that. I think that the “compartmentalizer” simply avoids (and evades) the mental effort required to integrate his speciality with other areas of knowledge. Many people do this even at the level of recognizing some facts while disregarding others which they don’t like.
On further thought I now understand that there is no contradiction involved in my example of, with new research, reaching a different conclusion about the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The earlier conclusion of no link was correct based on the evidence at that time.It was not a matter of claiming that no link could exist between the two regardless of what further research might reveal. Both the early and later conclusions were true given the evidence available at the time.
Ely, I may not fully understand your question but here goes my attempt. Are you asking whether it is possible to compartmentalize while also being illogical (irrational) within your speciality? If so, I believe the answer is yes. For example, someone could specialize in theology, astrology or alchemy without attempting to integrate these irrational beliefs to anything else. If so, the person would be guilty irrationality within the speciality as well as compartmentalization.But I think Rand/Peikoff think that the more interesting type of compartmentalization is where someone is rational within the specialized area of knowledge but fails to integrate that area with other areas of knowledge. Peikoff gives the example of the conservative economist (bottom page 127) but a more dramatic example is the character of Dr. Robert Statler in “Atlas Shrugged” who was very logical/rational in physics but failed to integrate his valid knowledge with any area dealing with people eg ethics.
Yes you are right that she definitely tied the concept of “friendship” and other related concepts referring to valued human relationships to selfishness. A good example is from the “Virtue of Selfishness” where she says “Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual ‘payment’ given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character.”
This may be a matter of how we interpret that moment in history. The opinion you quote seems to imply that Chamberlain’s decision to sign the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler was an insincere one ie that he really did not believe that he had found a way to peace but that it could not accept the personal and political embarrassment of admitting he had been wrong. My understanding of this event is that he was sincere but tragically so. He so wanted to avoid war that he evaded the full context of what he was dealing with – the nature of the Nazi regime and its track record in the 1930s of using force to achieve its aims. If he had chosen to consider the full context he would not have signed the agreement and certainly would not have tried to reassure the British people that he had found a way for peace with Germany. A similar case now is when some call for a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas. Such a call fails to take into account the full context of what Hamas is and its aims.
Thank you for this, Michael. I have not thought about educational philosophy (if that’s what this is) but your comments make a lot of sense. If I were a parent considering a school for my child (am now way past that stage!), I would be “sold” on yours. Your comments about putting motivation first then get to skills makes me think that this is what Ayn Rand did to become a philosopher. As I understand it, she did not initially want to become a philosopher as such but rather to be a story teller – specifically to portray what she considered to be the “ideal man” (human). In order to do this she had to think though what should be considered “ideal” – what is the nature of “good” in regards to human life, etc, etc. It was only by delving deeply into these questions (ie developing skills in philosophy) that she could achieve what she really wanted – to portray the ideal man.
Thanks for your very clear explanation of what Adler is saying. This seems to be connected to the Objectivist view that perception is automatic (determined by natural material processes) whereas conceptual thought requires the exercise of volition ie the choice to focus your mind. Then the question may be whether a machine could be created that could choose to think.
John, is what Adler is saying simply amount to a rejection of materialism ie the view the only things which exist are material? If so, I think he is correct in saying that conceptual thought is nonmaterial just as other types of consciousness (eg perception) are non-material. The human brain as it has evolved is the material apparatus necessary for human consciousness (including conceptual thought) but that does not tell the whole story. Rand rejects materialism (and its opposite – idealism) holding that both the material and non-material (consciousness) exist and do not “war” against each other.
Page 5 question – “existence” says something exists but nothing at all about the identity of the something. Page 24 question – “metaphysically given” means the thing necessarily exists ie is not the product of volition. Objects which are the product of a volitional consciousness (eg chair) do not necessarily exist ie they are the product of choices which could have been different. Page 22 question – it would depend on whether you judge that “everyone” is generally correct in what they say and whether you have any evidence that the common belief is wrong. For example, I accept the common belief among scientists that the surface of our moon is mostly dust. Scientists are generally correct and I have no evidence to the contrary about the moon’s surface.
I suppose Harris could reply that he was merely introducing a new causal element (his comment about the criminal being determined) to lead you to having compassion. But then he would still be inconsistent as he would be asking you to consider (ie think about) his comment and reach a conclusion (knowledge) about the moral status of the criminal. The contradiction still remains ie how can one claim to have knowledge of X if one has no choice about whether to believe X.
