Objectivist values (2)
Posted 7 February, 2008 in Philosophy
I don’t know who came up with this list, but I’m fairly sure it wasn’t Rand herself. As far as I’m aware this is the closest thing Rand said to the list below:
To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: reason, purpose and self-esteem.
I’m assuming this list was derived as a simple summary of how an Objectivist should live, based on Rand’s writings:
Can’t see any huge holes.
BTW, an adequate replacement for the Ten Commandments? I’ll let my Christian readers decide! 
(Later on I might do a comparison between this list and a few verses from the Good Book.)
Help some academics work out where rights come from (0)
Posted 3 January, 2008 in Philosophy, Politics
Academia can be a disturbing thing. Especially when a lot of the humanities types don’t actually believe in absolutes in knowledge i.e. they don’t believe you can really know anything for sure. If you think about it, this has a lot of implications in making moral decisions, because you can’t really ever know right from wrong. Probably why a lot of them are left wing.
With this epistemological position you can’t really know where rights come from either. Here’s a survey so you, dear reader, can tell some academics the good news that we can actually make accurate and reasonable moral decisions.
My answers below the fold.
Why I’m an Objectivst: Objectivists and service (2)
Posted 28 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary
I’m an Objectivist because I make all my decisions based solely on reason and empirical observation of the world in which I live, and I hold human life as the only yardstick of value.
But I’m also an Objectivist because I want to live a satisfying existence, surrounded by beauty and being delighted at every turn. This is my definition of the good life, and my formula for happiness.
Even if I couldn’t live this type of life I’d still live by reason alone; it would make no sense to do otherwise. But it makes me wonder why anyone, let alone (relatively) free and educated people, would choose to live according to religion, environmental mysticism, collectivism or self-sacrifice to the point of their own detriment. Why would someone choose to hold unhappiness and subservience as their personal values? My only explanation is that they haven’t worked out what is really going on in the world. I guess there is a lot of bullshit out there to confuse the ‘average punter’.
I am often challenged by friends, both religious and non-religious, who suggest that individualism can’t be a way to happiness, that there are values higher than yourself that should be served. Having spent most of my working life in military service I attempt to answer their challenge by going on the offensive: how can I, a person who holds my own happiness as my moral purpose, serve in the military where my life could potentially be put at risk and therefore everything I value be potentially destroyed? I’d say this question was answered quite effectively by John Stuart Mill*:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Living boldly, efficaciously and pursuing your own happiness without reservation is not a timid exercise. Once you identify the values necessary for human happiness they need to be pursued and upheld, and this requires effort and risk. So yes, there are values that I would defend at risk to myself, that I would ’serve’, you might say. However, the only values that I could ’serve’ without compromising my morals would be ones that could be shown through reason to uphold the value of human life. Or more simply, keep your religious mysticism, collectivist idealism and statist tyranny to yourself, because I’ll fight against it but never for it.
Any other twist on ’service’ is a violation of these values and would compromise my morality. As Ayn Rand herself said:
It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
* This quote was put on a plaque above the Cadets Bar at the Royal Military College Duntroon in 1996, as a gift from the Commanding Officer (LTCOL S. Ellis) who was resigning. I wonder if it’s still there.
Lefties and the ‘means of production’ (0)
Posted 17 December, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary, Politics
Most right-wing people who have sniffed around the political fringes know that hardcore lefties, and especially anarchists, have some sort of hang up about the ‘means of production’ in that they are obsessed with not having an individual person or entity controlling this sacred cow. They also know this strange obsession generates an undercurrent that drives a lot of left-wing ‘logic’.
As with so much left-wing logic there’s a half-truth that is extrapolated into a lie. The Great Unwashed have correctly identified the power source that allows human quality-of-life to be developed to a point that makes it enjoyable and satisfying; it’s called ‘production’ i.e. employment or enterprise.
But, in true lefty form, they then extrapolate this into a fantasy. They define ownership of ‘production’ to be the ownership of a factory, or a farm, or a business. Therefore, they conclude the ownership of ‘production’ is kept in the public interest by making sure these things are public property i.e. owned by the state for lefties and effectively owned by nobody for anarchists. Kill the bosses, start a commune and all that.
This is a fantasy because the ‘means of production’ has very little to do with the ownership of a building, or a piece of land, or having employees. These things are important, but in themselves they do not constitute ‘production’. The clincher that they overlook is the fact that ‘production’ comes from the genius of the producer. The intellect of the guy/girl who puts it all together and makes it happen is the primary reason that ‘production’ occurs.
Now lefties and anarchists can’t take a line that any individual is owned by the state, or by others, even if they are the ‘means of production’. This would make them look silly and expose the pathetic contradictions in their philosophies. So they pretend that ‘production’ rests with ownership of an inanimate object like the factory, farm or business, and definitely can’t be due to the genius of any particular individual.
But while pretending this is the case they actually do support the ownership of the productive individuals by the state. You only need to look at what lefties want done to the Richard Pratts or the (late) Kerry Packers. They want special restrictions put on these people so they are made to produce, so everyone else who doesn’t produce can consume. They effectively support less freedom for these people because they are productive.
In other words, our left-wing and anarchist friends get comfortable with the contradictions in their beliefs, and basically ignore them, even if this means taking a false view of reality that is essentially destructive to the whole community they claim to be protecting and nurturing.
Yay! Enviro-freaks drive themselves to extinction! (2)
Posted 26 November, 2007 in General, Humour, Philosophy
Via Tim Blair, it appears environmental nutcases are refusing to breed in order to “protect the planet”.
Hey, no problems with that. You go, girl!
A similarly minded young man adds “Sarah and I don’t need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet.”
And what makes healthy people like me jump for joy is that people like you aren’t breeding! Yay!
Of course, our enviro-knobs don’t comment on any deeper issues, like whether the human race should exist at all, or whether a limit of one child per couple would reduce the population to an ‘acceptable’ level, or what an ‘acceptable’ level is and why, or why humans have any less right to be on the planet than other forms of life. You see, you have to take these questions as an act of faith; extreme environmentalism is religion, after all.
Our first nutjob adds “Having children is selfish…………….”.
Damn straight, you crazy biatch! As any Objectivist will tell you, that’s precisely why you should do it. A more perfect reflection of yourself is the productive person’s greatest reward and a wonderful way to delight your soul! It’s also one pleasure that these freaks definitely don’t deserve!
Natural justice, you might say.
Brothers and sisters, let us share from the book of Milton Friedman! (0)
Posted 22 November, 2007 in Humour, Philosophy, Politics
It’s time to testify! I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I figure y’all need a little churchin’ up on the Gospel of the Free Market!
Milton Friedman on corporations says,
corporations have no social duty,
except to those who own their stock…….
…..so if you want your freedom,
let the corporate seize the day,
there really is no better way,
let’s privatise, choice is the way,
let corporations run our schools,
let the free market make the rules…………
……….and freedom to choose says Friedman,
or you will lose says Friedman…………
Masonomics: lose the we (0)
Posted 18 October, 2007 in Philosophy, Politics
It’s sometimes tiring promoting an individualist philosophy. Paternalism and the common good seem to be etched so deeply into the Western psyche that your typical individualist seems to be arguing against it on every turn. I blame the Judeo-Christian value system but, of course, it’s not near as bad as in most other cultures. A typical argument against a collectivist could be centred around the fact that a society is a collection of individuals, so it stands to reason that what’s good for society should also be good for the individuals who compose that society. Or perhaps the Margaret Thatcher quote:
“They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
Sometimes the collectivist might throw Thatcher in first, trying to claim the high moral ground, concluding that you, as a stinking individualist, don’t believe in society, do you? A good reply is to question their definition of society, and to add that as an individualist you believe in society as well; it’s just that the collectivist definition of society means sacrificing one group’s rights to the common good, which really means to some other more influential group. Whereas you see society as people coming together voluntarily to further their individual needs through mutual cooperation, as distinct from their vision, which is where everyone tries to live at everyone elses expense, and everyone tries to force their views on everyone else.
Tech Central Station has an article on a bunch of economists from George Mason University who are also promoting individualist values. They put forward much the same argument but in different terms:
Once upon a time, “We, the people” was the preamble to a charter that reminded those in government of the limitations on the power granted to them. In today’s political discourse, “we” is more often the preamble to something like a call for an involuntary collective health system.
If you want to be a Masonomist, you have to lose the we. When people use we in today’s politics , they are doing two things:
- Appealing to a moral entity that stands apart from and above John, Mary, or any other individual
- Treating government as the embodiment of that higher moral entity.
It also goes on to address another issue close to every lefty’s heart: market failure.
Masonomics says, “Markets fail. Use markets.”……….
Masonomics worries much more about government failure than market failure. Governments do not face competitive pressure. They are immune from the “creative destruction” of entrepreneurial innovation. In the market, ineffective firms go out of business. In government, ineffective programs develop powerful constituent groups with a stake in their perpetuation.
Read the article. It’s good.
The blogs of the guilty are as follows:
The apathetic apostate (0)
Posted 19 September, 2007 in Philosophy, Diary
My journey to Objectivism from a Christian past is a curious thing. I never renounced God any more than I renounced the tooth fairy. As my perception of reality developed she just took her appropriate place as a mythical being who served a purpose. Some years on He did as well. As time passed the Christian momentum diminished, as it didn’t explain anything or provide a useable moral framework anymore.
Not quite Jim Morrison screaming ‘cancel my subscription to the Resurrection’. I just simply didn’t feel motivated to reinvigorate it.
Questions questions questions……. (0)
Posted 12 September, 2007 in Philosophy
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein
In this post I wrote about the relationship between reason and creativity, and it’s still one question that I cannot put to bed. As our zany professor above implies, creativity is the be-all-and-end-all for civilised human beings. My problems with this statement are:
- We definitely haven’t got a society that honours the rational mind. Too many important decisions are made on some basis that is deemed, by the majority at least, to be more important than reason and this is the source of many of our problems. I would argue that honouring reason is still one hell of a worthwhile goal which we haven’t achieved. In fact, creativity is something that the mainstream affords some degree of awe and respect, but reason is often considered droll or base and certainly not something with which to formulate an important moral decision.
- The rational mind might be a faithful servant but surely it underpins the intuitive mind. I mean, if your intuitive mind comes up with a concept and then your rational mind examines it and decides it doesn’t adhere to reason then it’s probably best to throw that idea out!
- Creativity is certainly terrific and has taken us out of the dirt and into civilisation. But reason is still our primary means of survival as as species, so while it should always take the back seat to creativity we should never belittle it. The day will come again when, as a civilisation, it will almost certainly be the means by which we make the right decisions to prevent us falling into another Dark Ages. At this moment in human history we are currently witnessing such a decision point to some extent.
This still leaves me at my original position: that creativity is simply reason applied by the subconscious mind. Sometimes this is amazingly rapid, vigorous and wonderful, but it is still simply reason applied by the subconscious.
What is the nature of mathematics? (0)
Posted 12 September, 2007 in Philosophy
The nature of mathematics is something I’ve been pondering for years now. Particularly, what is it’s role in defining order in the universe? Is mathematics broader than the human mind can comprehend? And finally, does mathematics supersede the universe? In other words, if there was a parallel universe to ours, would it’s order have to be capable of being defined in some form of mathematics? (Which leads me back to the original question, what the hell is mathematics?!)
A book has been written on this subject: ‘Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being’ by George Lakoff & Rafael E. Núñez. I haven’t read it, and only stumbled across it while reading this Wikipedia article. Due to the fact that the book is written by a cognitive linguist and a psychologist I would expect it to concentrate on how humans conceive mathematics. However, based solely on the Wikpedia article this book appears to answer broader questions, but in doing this also receives some criticisms.
As quoted in Wikipedia, the book claims:
Mathematics makes up that part of the human conceptual system that is special in the following way:
“It is precise, consistent, stable across time and human communities, symbolizable, calculable, generalizable, universally available, consistent within each of its subject matters, and effective as a general tool for description, explanation, and prediction in a vast number of everyday activities, [ranging from] sports, to building, business, technology, and science.” - WMCF, pp. 50, 377
I don’t really have a problem with that. But I’m not sure this position is tenable:
WMCF emphatically reject the Platonistic philosophy of mathematics. They emphasize that all we know and can ever know is human mathematics, the mathematics arising from our brains. Whether a transcendent mathematics, independent of human thought, can be said to exist is an unanswerable and perhaps meaningless question.
I don’t claim to have any special ideas on whether a ‘transcedent mathematics’ can be conceptually held by a human being in any real form, but my intuition tends to suggest the human brain is quite good at formulating concepts and I, therefore, tend to err on this side of the argument:
“But their analysis leaves at least a couple of questions insufficiently answered. For one thing, the authors ignore the fact that brains not only observe nature, but also are part of nature. Perhaps the math that brains invent takes the form it does because math had a hand in forming the brains in the first place (through the operation of natural laws in constraining the evolution of life). Furthermore, it’s one thing to fit equations to aspects of reality that are already known. It’s something else for that math to tell of phenomena never previously suspected. When Paul Dirac’s equations describing electrons produced more than one solution, he surmised that nature must possess other particles, now known as antimatter. But scientists did not discover such particles until after Dirac’s math told him they must exist. If math is a human invention, nature seems to know what was going to be invented.” - Tom Siegfried, The Dallas Morning News, 3/5/2001
And this is pure geek humour:
« Previous“It’s difficult for me to conceive of a metaphor for a real number raised to a complex power, but if there is one, I’d sure like to see it.” - Joseph Auslander