Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
I guess they think that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., didn't exist.
And don't forget sarcasm, which you apparently failed to recognize in this case....
Some prefer to submit their will to the will of "god", as they interpret it.
Some prefer to live life as moral individuals.
I'd say it's the same old 'social' conservatives v. 'economic' conservatives rift.
But as you note, she also owes a lot to Nietzsche, which is not helpful to her cause. (See here, about halfway down the page for Whittaker Chambers' discussion of this debt....)
She said about reading Dostoevsky, (I'm not quoting), it's like being led through a lunatic asylum by a very powerful guide. (I can find the quote if you'd like it.)
She did appreciate Dostoevsky's writing and powerful plotting, but I think she short-changed him a little. One aspect of Dostoevsky that many people fail to appreciate is his wonderful subtle sense of humor. Humor was not Rand's strong point so that may be why she failed to appreciate it in others.
I do not meet many who appreciate Dostoevsky. So glad you mentioned it.
Hank
But we seem to be short on objective reason, carefully argued from principles that we know to be true, which are themselves based on fundamental principles that we know to be true - and we always will be, because at its core, objectivism is based on unprovable axioms, like everything else. There is no system of morality that can bootstrap itself into existence and be completely self-contained and completely provable in every proposition. It just doesn't work.
So which is it that is most paramount: the interests of the individual or that of mankind? Why, if I am totally governed by my own self interest, should I not coerce as much as I can get away with, and damn the consequences to the rest of humanity?
A man might prefer to eat cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner (hedonism). But I would point out that, objectively, that man is acting against his own long-term self-interest and happiness.
This is the simplest, most obvious way I can explain what the principle of 'self-interest' means. It is logical, objective, and (I would have thought) obvious.
I know this is difficult for you, but it's actually possible to say the same thing using a variety of words. The meaning of what I said was clear, and it is not different from your "correction."
And you're avoiding the question: can you prove that we "must not" sacrifice others to ourselves?
And the answer is, no. You cannot. Rational assessment of the objective evidence says that "must not" is false. Indeed, objective evidence suggest that the real answer is "may, if you can get away with it."
If we are to grant the truth of the "must not" statement, we must base it on something other than rational assessment of the evidence.
Reason is a logical process, that depends on observations. It allows one to determine that which is true, or most likely to be, and and allows relationships to be determined. It allows reality to be known and understood.
" For some reason, you have decided to part ways with Rand, and to exclude the evidence of "nature" (and human history) from your moral considerations.
No I haven't. I just covered this "nature" and Social Dawinism. Nature is not man and it is also not moral. Nature is not a fundamental characteristic of man, other than man's form conforms to physics. The essence of man is not limited to the laws of physics and immoral automatic action, driven by emotion.
" Which is to say, I am apparently supposed to ignore what I see if it does not confirm your preconceived notions.
There's no reason to ignore anything. There's also no reason to attribute the characteristics of one thing to another, that is not manifest in reality.
Yes, people seek their own happiness, but what happiness in life is and what happens when our desires and aspirations conflict with those of other people are complicated questions that deserve more study than she gives them. Rand was right about the central ethical/political question of the 20th Century (as were other people who approached the question from other directions): coercive collectivism is not the ethical/political ideal. But others have come up with better and deeper answers to the less ideological question of what we should do with our lives.
What brought me to Objectivism is my inability to understand why people like Nelson Rockefeller, who had more money than he could spend in three lifetimes, supported collectivism even though it was intent on taking his money away (If you want to know the answer to that, e-mail me).
That's not so hard a question. The collectivism that they support doesn't advocate taking all their money or other satisfactions. It's not a question of all or nothing for someone like Rockefeller. Moreover, if we had as much money as Rockefeller had we could lose half of it and still have much.
I do -- but they're not germane to this discussion, which is about the fallacies of Rand's objectivism.
Self-interest with a secret core of altruism? When did Rand advocate that?
It is not 'happiness' that is Rand's highest good.
(Forgive me for repeating this *yet* again, but . . .)
Consider the man who is happiest eating cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner. He is acting *against* his own self interest and long-term happiness (destroying his health).
I'm really surprised, how can such a simple thing be so widely misunderstood?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.