Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps [Archive]

View Full Version : Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps

griffjam

3rd July 2009, 17:41

Do you want to become an Objectivist but do not have enough time and patience to read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged? Now you can join the fun in just ten easy steps!

Step 1: Axioms
Axioms are the most obvious statements from which everything else follows. The Objectivist axioms are set up in such a way that they are irrefutable. Anyone trying to object to them must implicitly assume them even before he or she can formulate a counter-argument.

Axiom of Identity:

A is A.

Axiom of Subject:

I am aware of something.

Axiom of Object:

I am aware of something.

The first axiom is pretty much self explanatory. It will be discussed further in the section about Identity.

It may appear at a first glance that the Axiom of Subject and the Axiom of Object are the same. However, they are really like two sides of the same coin. The Axiom of Subject puts emphasis on the word I, whereas the Axiom of Object stresses the word something. Their apparent similarity reminds me of the fact that I cannot be aware without being aware of something.

Exercise:
Read out loud the Axioms of Subject and Object with proper emphasis. For extra credit, do it in front of a mirror.

Exercise:
Give examples of the Axiom of Identity by instantiating the variable A with pieces of furniture that you see around yourself.

Exercise:
Refute the so-called Universal Refutation of Philosophy invented by Raymond Smullyan:

That's what you say!

Hint: derive the three Objectivist axioms from the Universal Refutation. For extra credit, derive the Axioms of Subject and Object in essentially different ways.

Step 2: Reason and Logic
I identify the method by which true knowledge is acquired.

Knowledge is awareness of reality, i.e., of what there is. I have knowledge when I am aware of something real. But since it is logically impossible for me to be aware of anything unreal, it follows that the proper way to acquire knowledge is to use logic.

Put in another way, my capacity to use logic is called reason. When I am reasoning in accordance with reality, I acquire new knowledge.

Logic is that method of thinking which is in accordance with reality.

Exercise:
Demonstrate the power of logic and thinking in accordance with reality by proving the following elementary theorem in geometry:

In a triangle the inscribed circle touches the circle that passes through the midpoints of the sides.

http://andrej.com/objectivism/circles.gif

Figure 1: Using reason Ayn Rand discovered this theorem in 1936,
but the editor of Acta Mathematica refused to publish her discovery.

Exercise:
Use reason to establish the following syllogism, first postulated by Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of all time:

If all A are B,
and all A are C,
then some B are C.

Step 3: Identity
The Axiom of Identity can be rephrased by saying that things quite simply are what they are. A chair is a chair, and not a table. In philosophical language we say that a thing has identity. This also means that a thing is identical with its properties and characteristics. The most important consequences of this realization are explained through the following exercises.

Exercise:
Explain in lay terms the following passage from Ayn Rand's unpublished Secret Diary of Howard Roark:

November 18, 1998

Today was her 21st birthday. We got drunk together and she tried to convince me that I didn't take our relationship seriously. I kept telling her that relationships had a secondary epistemological status, anyway, because they were generated by predicates [emphasis added]. She was shouting that I was a selfish son of a *****. I tried to explain to her that that followed logically from A is A, but she wouldn't listen. I don't know anymore what to do. I love her, but if she does not get her identity straight soon, things could get pretty nasty between her and me.

Extra credit: Eliminate all relations from the last sentence in the above passage by replacing them with combinations of predicates.

Exercise:
Fill in the details in the following argument which swiftly dispenses with all forms of skepticism.

1. Things are what they are.
2. There is only one reality, namely the way things are.
3. Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are.
4. Man has capacity to reason and use logic.
5. Knowledge is objective and attainable by man.

Exercise:
Show that relativity theory and quantum mechanics are based on corrupt philosophies because they violate the principle of identity. In particular, relativity theory denies objectivity of knowledge (see previous exercise), and quantum theory denies identity itself (particles do not have definite properties).

Step 4: Concept
Edmund Husserl (1859--1938) derived his own brand of philosophy, called phenomenology, from Ayn Rand's monumental work "Atlas Shrugged". In many ways Husserl's philosophy is fundamentally flawed and a true Objectivist cannot accept it because it denies that A is A. However, by a dumb strike of luck Husserl provided an excellent analysis of the fundamental concept 'concept'.

We take a modern phenomenological explanation of concepts from an article [CENSORED] by [CENSORED]. This is one of the best concise explanations of Objectivist concepts--it is ironic that [CENSORED] himself is very much opposed to Objectivism.

" [CENSORED]"

A famous philosopher and admirer of Ayn Rand wrote in his Philosophical Investigations once that "we see visual sense-data through our eyes, we hear aural sense-data through our ears, and we grasp concepts through our reason."

A typical example of a concept is what you think of when you are thinking of a chair. Even though you cannot define a chair, you recognize one when you see it. An example of a more abstract concept is furniture.

Exercise:
Find the original article [CENSORED] by [CENSORED] and read it. It was published in [CENSORED], [CENSORED]. Criticize the article from the Objectivist point of view.

Exercise:
Refute the following argument:

Concepts are unnecessary constructs of a suspicious mental nature. It is better to avoid concepts and talk about language only.

For extra credit, base your refutation on the following passage from "The Fountainhead":

She took off her nightgown, stepped to the window, sighed deeply and said: "The mind is the origin of all meaning. I mean what I say. Words in themselves are empty." He lit a cigarette and admired her naked body which was illuminated by silver moonlight.

Step 5: Context
It is clear that different people perceive different sense-data. For example, if a group of people is watching a statue they will perceive slightly different images of it, depending on where they stand. Nobody would argue that each of them must be perceiving a different, personal copy of the statue. The differences in perception are accounted for in the differences in their positions.

Similarly, people grasp the same concept differently. For example, a group of people will mostly agree on what a chair is, but they will disagree in a small proportion of cases. This is because their minds grasp the concept of a chair from different contexts.

It should not be argued that every mind somehow grasps its personal copy of a concept. Instead, the differences are accounted for in the differences of contexts. Neither is it correct to say that when the context changes the concepts change with it, but rather that the same concepts are understood in a different way.

Exercise:
Find a friend and discuss with him or her the differences in your understanding of the following concepts: set, cricket, glass, cricket, poker, down.

Step 6: Man as Rational Animal
You have now completed the first part of your Objectivist training in which you learned the basics of Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics. The second part is concerned with Objectivist ethics, which is a logical consequence of Objectivist epistemology.

First we contemplate on the nature of man. What makes a man a man (the technical expression is "man qua man")? In accordance with the method of integration and differentiation, a proper definition of man identifies man as a member of a larger category by differentiating it from other members of that category. Clearly, the larger category is animal, and the distinguishing characteristic of man is reason. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that

Man qua man is a rational animal.

Exercise:
Demonstrate that there are no rational ants. Argue as follows:

1. A rational consciousness has identity.
2. Identity of a rational consciousness manifests itself in its ability to reason independently of other consciousnesses. In other words, rational consciousness cannot have identity without being independent of other consciousnesses.
3. An independent consciousness cannot exist in a society in which its existence depends vitally on the actions of other consciousnesses.
4. The defining characteristic of an ant hill is the existential inter-dependence of its members.

Extra credit: Does it follow that Darwin's theory of evolution is flawed, since his theory in principle allows existence of rational ants?

Exercise:
Use the ideas from the previous exercise to show that the definition of man as rational social animal is unacceptable because freedom is an essential characteristic of a rational consciousness.

Step 7: Egoism
A moral value is that which one believes and acts upon. The question arises, what are the moral values of a man?

We quote Rand's proof of her famous theorem "Egoism as rational moral value of identity" from Formal Objectivism:

(1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x) [definition]
(2) |- man(y) [hypothesis]
(3) |- y = y [by Axiom of Identity]
(4) |- rational(y) [by (1) and (2)]
(5) |- knows(y, y=y) [by (3) and (4)]
(6) |- rational(y) & value(y, v) ==> v [Rational Value Theorem]
(7) |- egoist(x) <==> value(x, x = x) [definition of egoism]
(8) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(value(y, y = y)) [from (7) instantiating x = y]
(9) |- not(egoist(y)) ==> value(y, not(y = y)) [by not-propagation]
(10)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> not(y = y) [by (9) and (6)]
(11)|- not(egoist(y)) ==> false [by (10) and (3)]
(12)|- egoist(y) [by (11) ad absurdum]
(13)|- man(y) ==> egoist(y) [by (2) and (12) by ==> introduction]

Note: the Rational Value Theorem asserts that whatever values a rational consciousness holds, they are true, because a consciousness which holds false values is not rational.

Observe that in step (7) egoism is defined as holding ones own identity as moral value. The Ayn Rand Institute explains the Objectivist moral values as follows:

Ethics
"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism-- the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Exercise:
Explain Rand's proof in ordinary language.

Exercise:
Scientists are puzzled over step (5) in Rand's proof since it never gets used. Speculate on a reason why Rand might have included it in her proof. Was it only her Italian heritage which spurred a superstitious belief in the lucky number 13?

Step 8: Capitalism
Initiation of force against man by man to achieve goals denies the rational side of man. Thus, the proper political and sociological establishment of human society is one which never uses force to achieve its goals and protects the freedom of men qua men.

This means that the government must not limit activities of men for any reason other than to protect their freedom. This is the basic principle of capitalism.

Exercise:
Socialist ideology characterizes capitalism as the system which institutionalizes exploitation of man by man. Show that this is false, and that in capitalism the roles of exploiter and exploitee are actually reversed.

Exercise:
Demonstrate superiority of Objectivist understanding of economic and political forces by becoming rich. (Hint: take an 8x8 sheet of gold and cut it into pieces as in Figure 2.

http://andrej.com/objectivism/gold1.gif

Figure 2: 8x8 sheet of gold, total area is 64.

Then rearrange the pieces as in Figure 3.

http://andrej.com/objectivism/gold2.gif

Figure 3: 5x13 sheet of gold, total area 65.

You have now profited 1x1 square of gold. This method was suggested by epistemological research of L. Peikoff and perfected by A. Greenspan.)

Step 9: Art and Æsthetics
Ayn Rand herself was as much of an artist as a philosopher. She put her heart into screenwriting but the communist-oriented Holywood industry of the late 40's rejected her. However, she did not give in and instead became a prominent novelist. Her encounters with the irrational world she lived in are portrayed in the independently produced film "Alyssa Rosenbaum: a Sense of Life".

Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as "Realistic Romanticism": "I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth."

Exercise:
Surf the web and visit Essentials of Objectivism at the Ayn Rand Institute. Read the part about Esthetics and discuss it with your friends.

Exercise:
Andy Warhol, the notorious founder of pop art, made a portrait of Ayn Rand, but she denounced him after she realized that he did not respect her Objectivist principles of art and æsthetics. Criticize Andy Warhol's painting "A Sixpack of Ayns" from the Objectivist point of view.

http://andrej.com/objectivism/warhol.jpg

Figure 4: Andy Warhol, A Sixpack of Ayns, 1963,
silkscreen print on canvas (236" x 157")

Step 10: Objectivism in Practice
You have now learned enough to start applying Objectivism in real life. Just remember the summary of her philosophy that Ayn Rand once gave while standing on one foot:

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

"You can't eat your cake and have it too."

"Man is an end in himself."

"Give me liberty or give me death."

And live your life by the words of one of Ayn Rand's heroes:

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play."

Exercise:
Which hero of Ayn Rand said that?

Exercise:
Ayn Rand once said:

"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life."

Apply this to your sexual preferences. What metaphysics can you deduce from sexual desires of your female or male sexual partner of the opposite sex?

Exercise:
From now on you are on your own, but if you ever need help buy something from the The Objectivist Store. Your final task is to follow the words of the famous Objectivist, psychologist and radio talk-show hostess Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

mykittyhasaboner

3rd July 2009, 17:53

Throw objectivism into the dustbin of philosophy in 3 easy steps:

1) Realize that everything Ayn Rand ever said or wrote is worthless, for extra credit: put Atlas Shrugged to use by using it as toilet paper
2) Reject Laissez-Faire capitalism as it's impossible in today's world
3) Understand that the world doesn't revolve around you, and "rational self-interest" conflicts with the simple fact that human society is a constant ever developing collective organization based on your existence in relation to the existence of others, rather than on "mans own 'free will".

Kronos

3rd July 2009, 18:01

I would refute Objectivism by asserting that it is not true enough. The epistemology of objectivism unwittingly passes into moral relativism. The day I hear Rand admit it is okay to murder, rape, steal, and destroy is the day I will conclude she isn't so dumb after all. But parading all this "Galt is a noble creature" nonsense comfortably behind the terrible, harder truth is the work of weaklings and liars. Galt is an opportunistic putz who isn't worth the sweat on my balls. A momma's boy who happened to be in the right place at the right time. I blame the proletariat for his success, those miserable, passive little ants that you can't do anything with but exploit.

mel

3rd July 2009, 18:32

--snipped--

Please quote your sources and make it clear if you are not the author of a post:

http://andrej.com/objectivism/

If you are the original author: my apologies.

Jack

3rd July 2009, 18:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B4pgo9Db6w

Nwoye

3rd July 2009, 19:12

When A recommends to B that B should be an egoist, he is recommending that B should regard A as being only valuable as a means. This necessarily follows from the supposition that B should regard B’s life as the sole end in itself, which is the meaning of egoism. A therefore seems to be caught in a contradiction: A holds that A’s own life is an end in itself, but at the same time A thinks that no one else ought to recognize A’s life as being an end in itself. In a parallel contradiction, A holds that other people are valuable only as means, but he holds that other people are correct in regarding themselves as valuable not merely as means but as ends in themselves. In other words: Each individual is correct in a belief which directly contradicts what every other individual correctly believes. A is correct to believe P, but B is correct to believe not-P. Is this not an "absolute contradiction"?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooValues.html (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ejsku/ooValues.html)

mikelepore

4th July 2009, 00:06

Homework exercise: Laugh for an hour at the following assertion:

Capitalism ..... which never uses force to achieve its goals

mel

4th July 2009, 00:10

Homework exercise: Laugh for an hour at the following assertion:

I do believe the original piece was ironico-sarcastical.

griffjam

4th July 2009, 19:48

I do believe the original piece was ironico-sarcastical.

Thank you.

This is approved by ARI. They can be found at www.ari.org.

Havet

4th July 2009, 20:11

When A recommends to B that B should be an egoist, he is recommending that B should regard A as being only valuable as a means.

Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

Egoism does not imply the recognition that other people are the end of others.

According to objectivism: "Man (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html)—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html) himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfinterest.html) and of his own happiness (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html) is the highest moral (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html) purpose (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html) of his life."

just thought i'd clear that up.

MikeSC

4th July 2009, 21:49

IcarusAngel

5th July 2009, 00:13

The essay is a subtle attack on objectivism. It contains a lot of valid logic, but then uses them in absurd situations, like trying to prove principles of psychology through logic.

Miseans and other anti-scientific idiots do the same thing. However, I agree with a lot of the principles objectivists supposedly arrive at:

"It is clear that different people perceive different sense-data. For example, if a group of people is watching a statue they will perceive slightly different images of it, depending on where they stand. Nobody would argue that each of them must be perceiving a different, personal copy of the statue. The differences in perception are accounted for in the differences in their positions.
"

I'd say though that each of them definitely sees their own copy of the image, as each person also sees things like color differently from the electrons and protons that make the "statue."

Dimentio

5th July 2009, 00:19

[/I]

Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

Egoism does not imply the recognition that other people are the end of others.

According to objectivism: "Man (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html)—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html) himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfinterest.html) and of his own happiness (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html) is the highest moral (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html) purpose (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html) of his life."

just thought i'd clear that up.

Morals are a consequence of the physical situation.

If we say that you are unemployed and homeless, and that no one wants to hire you because of real or perceived incompetence, would you hesitate in stealing an apple to survive?

Kronos

5th July 2009, 00:25

http://blogln.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2189391:BlogPost:44940

The plot thickens.

WhitemageofDOOM

5th July 2009, 04:33

Step 6: Man as Rational Animal

Well here's where the problems stat.
1. Man is not a rational animal, SCIENCE! tells me so.
2. What actually separates us from other animals is absurd endurance, i mean it's kind of awes inspiring. Well that and living in giant monkey hives where millions of humans work as a single larger organism....we call them cities.

Havet

5th July 2009, 11:51

Must? You "individualists" are awfully keen to restrict yourselves with "philosophers" rules as if they descended from the sky written in stone.

Selfishness, self-interest- both of those things, in my book, are fine as long as you're only selfish about things you have a moral right to. eg. Not material resources.

I certainly don't restrict myself with any philosophers. Don't judge with lack of info, idiot.

So tell me, what's a moral right? where does it come from? Did i ever say i agreed with Rand's definition? Where have I said it? Where have I said i agree with all of objectivism at all? I was arguing that the author which sedrox quoted was assuming something objectivism did not stand for, or imply it, and firmly defended it.

Morals are a consequence of the physical situation.

If we say that you are unemployed and homeless, and that no one wants to hire you because of real or perceived incompetence, would you hesitate in stealing an apple to survive?

I wouldn't hesitate in stealing, but that WOULDN'T MAKE IT MORAL.

The action of stealing in that case is understandeable, but it is still immoral.

So you may ask, what's the point of having a morality if one can not follow it at any time?

A morality is merely a guideline to guide your actions according to the virtues you hold as good. It is only up to you to follow them or not, and up to your integrity as well. I will try to neve steal, but if it ever comes to that situation, i wouldn't blame the apple owner from defending his justly acquired property.

Havet

5th July 2009, 11:55

Well here's where the problems stat.
1. Man is not a rational animal, SCIENCE! tells me so.
2. What actually separates us from other animals is absurd endurance, i mean it's kind of awes inspiring. Well that and living in giant monkey hives where millions of humans work as a single larger organism....we call them cities.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

you can embrace all the irrationality you want, but don't say all humans are irrational. If that we're the case, how did televisions, cars, airplanes, motors, telephones, high-precision medical instruments, radios, internet, bicycles, books, electric lamps, helicopters, spaceships and the like appeared? Aren't we all irrational? Maybe the GODS made this for us!

I'll grant you that many people are stupid and buy shit from smart people, but that doesn't mean we are ALL stupid or don't have the POTENTIAL to be SMART/RATIONAL/INTELLIGENT

MikeSC

5th July 2009, 12:06

I certainly don't restrict myself with any philosophers. Don't judge with lack of info, idiot.

So tell me, what's a moral right? where does it come from? Did i ever say i agreed with Rand's definition? Where have I said it? Where have I said i agree with all of objectivism at all? I was arguing that the author which sedrox quoted was assuming something objectivism did not stand for, or imply it, and firmly defended it. I was making a comment about supposed individualists relying on rules made by philosophers, like that silly woman Rand. Is that not obvious?

Private property is the institution constructed on top of the "natural" equilibrium, it is the addition- it's for the supporters of private property to prove that it is the moral addition.

Now, if you like, tell me what your justification for private property is, and I will prove you deluded.

Dimentio

5th July 2009, 12:23

A morality is merely a guideline to guide your actions according to the virtues you hold as good. It is only up to you to follow them or not, and up to your integrity as well. I will try to neve steal, but if it ever comes to that situation, i wouldn't blame the apple owner from defending his justly acquired property.

Morality is not something individualistic. It is a consequence of the society. We could have several different kinds of moral dogmas in society. One where the state is the unit making the moral choices, one there the family is making the moral choices, or one where individuals are making the moral choices, or combinations between them all three.

The purpose of morality is basically to create a set of rules which people follow without someone having to resort to threat of force to have them enforced. For example, if everyone would steal if there weren't cops around, then the entire equation would collapse.

Havet

5th July 2009, 12:29

I was making a comment about supposed individualists relying on rules made by philosophers, like that silly woman Rand. Is that not obvious?

Private property is the institution constructed on top of the "natural" equilibrium, it is the addition- it's for the supporters of private property to prove that it is the moral addition.

Now, if you like, tell me what your justification for private property is, and I will prove you deluded.

everything i had said has been said before. just check out all of my thread-long comments you did not care to discuss at the time i presented them. I will not enter an argument in which i am sure you are deluded (by simply claiming i am deluded for believing in private property).

Havet

5th July 2009, 12:31

Morality is not something individualistic. It is a consequence of the society. We could have several different kinds of moral dogmas in society. One where the state is the unit making the moral choices, one there the family is making the moral choices, or one where individuals are making the moral choices, or combinations between them all three.

The purpose of morality is basically to create a set of rules which people follow without someone having to resort to threat of force to have them enforced. For example, if everyone would steal if there weren't cops around, then the entire equation would collapse.

i did not say it is individualistic. anyway, what you said is pretty much an extension of what i said, and since i agree with it, there's no more discussion to be had here.

MikeSC

5th July 2009, 12:37

everything i had said has been said before. just check out all of my thread-long comments you did not care to discuss at the time i presented them. I will not enter an argument in which i am sure you are deluded (by simply claiming i am deluded for believing in private property).

Do you think I read all the threads in this forum? I'm unsure if I've ever read anything by you before.

You won't justify this comment at all?

The action of stealing in that case is understandeable, but it is still immoral.

You presented this comment in this thread, you won't discuss it?

You're making an assertion that removing someone's property is immoral- you need to justify private property as a moral institution. I'm not about to search through all the nonsense you've spouted to ressurrect some other thread when this is a topic you've brought up in this thread.

Havet

5th July 2009, 13:07

Do you think I read all the threads in this forum? I'm unsure if I've ever read anything by you before.

You won't justify this comment at all?

No, by the nature of your comment i can see you are not applying logic and reason, therefore there is no point discussing with you, because i know we'll never get somewhere.

You presented this comment in this thread, you won't discuss it?

You're making an assertion that removing someone's property is immoral- you need to justify private property as a moral institution. I'm not about to search through all the nonsense you've spouted to ressurrect some other thread when this is a topic you've brought up in this thread.

you're quick to forget aren't you?

#COMMENT 1

Originally Posted by Sedrox http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1482443#post1482443)
When A recommends to B that B should be an egoist, he is recommending that B should regard A as being only valuable as a means.

Non sequitur (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

Egoism does not imply the recognition that other people are the end of others.

According to objectivism: "Man (http://www.anonym.to/?http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html)—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html) himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfinterest.html) and of his own happiness (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html) is the highest moral (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html) purpose (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/purpose.html) of his life."

just thought i'd clear that up.

in this comment i am merely discussing why the interpretation of objectivism by the author sedrox quoted was incorrect. I posted no personal opinion, nor claimed anything regarding my personal beliefs.

#COMMENT 2

I wouldn't hesitate in stealing, but that WOULDN'T MAKE IT MORAL.

The action of stealing in that case is understandeable, but it is still immoral.

So you may ask, what's the point of having a morality if one can not follow it at any time?

A morality is merely a guideline to guide your actions according to the virtues you hold as good. It is only up to you to follow them or not, and up to your integrity as well. I will try to never steal, but if it ever comes to that situation, i wouldn't blame the apple owner from defending his justly acquired property.

Here i am discussing the nature of morality, which means that it is through one's free will that he decides or not to follow a code of values (a morality). I also responded to the example I DID NOT BRING UP (the apple) and applied the extension of my arguments to the example.

Then i posted a personal opinion on the matter, but i will not discuss it because its motive was to better exemplify the point i was making (just because one does something he believes is immoral doesn't mean it is now moral).

MikeSC

5th July 2009, 13:38

No, by the nature of your comment i can see you are not applying logic and reason, therefore there is no point discussing with you, because i know we'll never get somewhere.Why don't you present your argument and we'll see which is logical?

in this comment i am merely discussing why the interpretation of objectivism by the author sedrox quoted was incorrect. I posted no personal opinion, nor claimed anything regarding my personal beliefs.And I made a comment about "individualists" sticking to arbitrary rules invented by other people yet calling themselves individualists- this is all merely restating what has happened, it is not at all relating to the comment of mine you quoted- where you stated that "stealing" is "immoral", and should be able to justify private property if you want to back that up.

Here i am discussing the nature of morality, which means that it is through one's free will that he decides or not to follow a code of values (a morality). I also responded to the example I DID NOT BRING UP (the apple) and applied the extension of my arguments to the example.

Then i posted a personal opinion on the matter, but i will not discuss it because its motive was to better exemplify the point i was making (just because one does something he believes is immoral doesn't mean it is now moral).Again, you're dodging around and not relating to what I said. You're making assertions that require the legitimacy of private property- "justly acquired property", for example? Doesn't the whole thing hinge on this assertion? And you don't want to defend this? And you're making a moral judgement yourself by describing the action as "stealing", don't kid yourself that you're above any of this.

Havet

5th July 2009, 17:09

Why don't you present your argument and we'll see which is logical?

And I made a comment about "individualists" sticking to arbitrary rules invented by other people yet calling themselves individualists- this is all merely restating what has happened, it is not at all relating to the comment of mine you quoted- where you stated that "stealing" is "immoral", and should be able to justify private property if you want to back that up.

Again, you're dodging around and not relating to what I said. You're making assertions that require the legitimacy of private property- "justly acquired property", for example? Doesn't the whole thing hinge on this assertion? And you don't want to defend this? And you're making a moral judgement yourself by describing the action as "stealing", don't kid yourself that you're above any of this.

I won't debate this. Most people here are not up to a reasoned debate, and i am done arguing reason with those who do not care about reason. I will occasionally debate something every once in a while, but pertaining this matter with you i won't do it.

If you want to know exactly why i won't discuss this, take a look on my "goodbye post":

i don't care any more to discuss with you, because people here consistently engage in illusions, fallacies, wrong beliefs and never care to admit data that goes against their ideology.

You also give government credit for all the good things free enterprise achieved and whenever something that you don't like happens you blame it on the private companies...

I'm not going to argue with someone who is not willing to accept reason and logic in the debate and only cares to defend his opinions whether they are true or not. All i have to say has been said and my arguments still stand.

You can keep on fantasizing and picking up arguments you like to justify points you enjoy. I would suggest you started looking at your own logic and to look at my arguments with logic and critical eye.

Also, start looking at FACTS. Many people believe, like many do outside this forum, that everything is an opinion so that they can never be wrong. This is of course ridiculous. But i'm not that worried. Those that try to wipe out reality will end up being wiped out by it.

In other related news, here are the 2 most common circular logic fallacies you guys commit here:

Private property-> Leads to exploitation as a result of people being free to trade and free to condense wealth -> I come and try to show this is not true -> You claim the argument starts at private property, not markets.

Workers are exploited -> How -> They don't receive the fruits of their labor -> If they don't like it they can leave -> They have no choice, it's work for capitalist or starve -> No, they can get another job, become self-employed, or set up a cooperative/community/commune -> No they can't, capitalist holds all means of production -> If that were the case Bill Gates, Richard Branson and many others could have never become rich -> oh some people get lucky ->Wealth is not a matter of luck -> Then why are so many people poor? -> They are unaware of how to make wealth -> anyway, the chance of becoming a capitalist doesn't justify its power -> whats wrong with a capitalist? -> they exploit the workers -> how? -> workers don't receive fruits of labor...

have fun dreaming of your fantasies, i'm done wasting my time.

Also, don't bother replying to this, because I won't comment on it either.

Enjoy

IcarusAngel

5th July 2009, 20:17

Havet

5th July 2009, 20:53

lol. Again, Hayenmill gets blatantly owned. He claims everything "good" comes from the free-market, then when shown that the government and highly restricted markets played the largest roles, like in computing, he starts again with his logical fallacies.

Objectivists like him do not understand logic and no objectivist ever made a contribution to logic.

idiot (oh yeah ad hominem in your face)

where did you get the idea i am an objectivist? For once i am anti-state, and objectivism holds some sort of state as necessary (minarchism). Read something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29) before making fckin dumbass claims.

And since you decided to ignore my posts on how many GOOD things came from individuals pursuing their seperate interests without using publicly stolen money:

If you had actually read what i posted about cars you would have found that

By 1964, Most U.S. automobiles were sold with standard front seat belts; rear seat belts were made standard in 1968.

and that ONLY In 1970, the state of Victoria, Australia (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_Australia), passed the first law worldwide making seat belt wearing compulsory for drivers and front-seat passengers.

Light Bulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb#History_of_the_light_bulb)

Automobiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#History)

Airplanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplanes#History)

-nylon
-teflon
-mylar
-kevlar
-neopren
-lycra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont)

Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television#History)

Mobile phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#History)

and countless many others. I never said government NEVER invented anything. of course they have. I was only responding to the claim that all inventions of individuals were the consequence of a government (this means, paid by taxpayers money)

Also, on computing:

In 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Marie_Jacquard) made an improvement to the textile loom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loom) by introducing a series of punched paper cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_card) as a template which allowed his loom to weave intricate patterns automatically. The resulting Jacquard loom was an important step in the development of computers because the use of punched cards to define woven patterns can be viewed as an early, albeit limited, form of programmability.
It was the fusion of automatic calculation with programmability that produced the first recognizable computers. In 1837, Charles Babbage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage) was the first to conceptualize and design a fully programmable mechanical computer, his analytical engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#cite_note-7) Limited finances and Babbage's inability to resist tinkering with the design meant that the device was never completed.
In the late 1880s Herman Hollerith invented the recording of data on a machine readable medium. Prior uses of machine readable media, above, had been for control, not data. "After some initial trials with paper tape, he settled on punched cards ..."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#cite_note-8) To process these punched cards he invented the tabulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating_machines), and the key punch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_punch) machines. These three inventions were the foundation of the modern information processing industry. Large-scale automated data processing of punched cards was performed for the 1890 United States Census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_Census) by Hollerith's company, which later became the core of IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM). By the end of the 19th century a number of technologies that would later prove useful in the realization of practical computers had begun to appear: the punched card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_card), Boolean algebra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_%28logic%29), the vacuum tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube) (thermionic valve) and the teleprinter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter).

---

George Stibitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stibitz) is internationally recognized as a father of the modern digital computer. While working at Bell Labs in November of 1937, Stibitz invented and built a relay-based calculator he dubbed the "Model K" (for "kitchen table", on which he had assembled it), which was the first to use binary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system) circuits to perform an arithmetic operation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adder_%28electronics%29)

So you see, computing was actually done without a government

Now INTERNET on the other hand, was created by government (dunno if this was what you were actually pointing out). Here is more info to prove that:

The USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)'s launch of Sputnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik) spurred the United States to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as ARPA, in February 1958 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_in_science) to regain a technological lead.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#cite_note-2) ARPA created the Information Processing Technology Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Processing_Technology_Office) (IPTO) to further the research of the Semi Automatic Ground Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi_Automatic_Ground_Environment) (SAGE) program, which had networked country-wide radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar) systems together for the first time. J. C. R. Licklider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._R._Licklider) was selected to head the IPTO.
Licklider moved from the Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory at Harvard University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University) to MIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology) in 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_in_science), after becoming interested in information technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology). At MIT, he served on a committee that established Lincoln Laboratory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Laboratory) and worked on the SAGE project. In 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_in_science) he became a Vice President at BBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies), where he bought the first production PDP-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-1) computer and conducted the first public demonstration of time-sharing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing).
At the IPTO, Licklider got Lawrence Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Roberts_%28scientist%29) to start a project to make a network, and Roberts based the technology on the work of Paul Baran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran),[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#cite_note-3) who had written an exhaustive study for the U.S. Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) that recommended packet switching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_switching) (as opposed to circuit switching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_switching)) to make a network highly robust and survivable. After much work, the first two nodes of what would become the ARPANET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET) were interconnected between UCLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles) and SRI International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International) (SRI) in Menlo Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menlo_Park), California, on October 29, 1969. The ARPANET was one of the "eve" networks of today's Internet.

Nwoye

5th July 2009, 21:59

[/I]Non sequitur

Egoism does not imply the recognition that other people are the end of others.

According to objectivism: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

just thought i'd clear that up.
Well Objectivism states that every man should regard himself and his own happiness (or interests) as the highest end. That means any other human being should be valued as nothing more than a means to those ends. So if person A is an egoist, he believes that his interests are the only end worth valuing, and that everyone else (person B) can be used to further his ends (even at B's expense). So if he's telling person B to be an egoist, he's telling person B that he should regard his own interests as the ultimate end, and that other people (person A) may be used as means to that end. So person A, by spreading egoism, is really in a performative contradiction here, by saying one thing and preaching another. This position of egoism can be juxtaposed against the Kantian and Utilitarian concepts of the moral purpose of humans, the former stating that all humans are ends in themselves and the latter stating that they are all means to a greater social end.

Also, I don't see how you can say these things together without contradicting yourself:
"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
The blue is essentially a reiteration of the Kantian principle that an individual should be treated never as a mere means to an end but always simultaneously as an end in themselves (Kant's "kingdom of ends" proposition). What that means is, I cannot use you purely for my own interests, without respecting your own status as an end. something that would violate this would be slavery for example, as I am not considering your individual autonomy and your interests by giving you the option of being a means to an end.

The brownish part - your standard appeal to egoism - says that there is no moral imperative or purpose beyond self interest, including the treatment of others as ends. So going by this statement, I could enslave the entire human race, since after all, the pursuit of my own "rational self-interest and happiness" is the only moral purpose I need to worry about.

So which is it? If you choose the first statement then you're just a Kantian and if you choose the latter you have to deal with the performative contradiction illustrated in my first post.

IcarusAngel

5th July 2009, 22:03

The first concept of a computer was not the Jacquard loom. The Jacquard loom isn't even a computer - it doesn't compute anything. The Jacquard loom is an example of the stroed program concept - it allows for not only the keying in of parameters of a problem but also allows for the patterns themselves to be stored and used whenever needed.

That is why computer scientists mention the Jacquared loom, because of its application in PROGRAMMING, but it was not an actual computer.

The first example of a computer was probably something like the abacus - not the loom engine - which actually allowed you to perform mathematical operations. Abacuses were developed in a time when mathematics was very much the performance of highly educated men either sponsored by the state or trained by the state, or worked with the state.

Also, slide rules are another example of something that computes or is a manual calculator, and they were also developed in a time that had nothing to do with a free-market, being invented by Oughtred in the 1600s based off the principles of Napier. Blaise Pascal designed mechanical calculators with gears that performed addition and subtraction in 1642 (probably why the Pascal language is named after him), and Leibniz created the Leibniz wheel in the 1600s as well. Again, these men were highly trained and privileged mathematicians living in a society that had nothing to do with market principles.

Babbage is the true inventor of the concept of the computer for the 1800s and he continued the work of Pascal and Leibniz by creating a prototype Difference Engine. He was also subsidized by the British government. However, he abandoned the project to work on the Analytical Engine for which he never could get funds.

However, his analygic engine had the four criteria for the modern computer:
-An input device
-Memory
-A central processing device (a device that decides what operations to do)
-An output device

It's been shown he could have made his invention (Computer Science: An Introduction), but was held back only for the lack of funding.

That is truly the "market at work." Had people like Baggage been allowed to progress, and Maxwell, etc., humanity would have progressed far faster than it has.

Anyway, the first computers that were put into mass practice were done so by the government.

Hollerith was employed by the U.S. Census Bureau in the 1890s and he realized that by the old methods by the time they got the census counted it would be time to conduct a new census, as it took years to count and the Constitution indicates that an accounting should occur every ten years. So he invented electromechanical counting equipent that used punch cards as input and created the International Business Machines (IBM) corporation.

So one of the first computing companies was created essentially for the purposes of government.

However, IBM didn't invent the first electronic computer. Hollerith sold his single purpose machines to a variety of companies and it became a huge industry in the US, and none of them were modled off the multipurpose engine of Babbage. It it wasn't until 1937 that IBM invested in a multipurpose machine: Mark I.

The Mark I was a project at Harvard University. It was designed by Howard Aiken and it was only after starting did he become aware of Babbage, from whom he later claimed inspiration. It was completed in '44. However, it didn't incorporate vaccum tubes and was obsolete at about the time it was completed.

The ENIAC and EDVAC are the precursors to modern computers. The ENIAC came after the Mark I and was also funded by the US military and the University system. The military invested in it because of problems they were having with gun trajectories, where field testing often led to missed targets or friendly fire. So, the US Army sponsored the Moore School of Engineering and at the University of Pennsyvania. John Mauchly and J Presper Eckert invented the ENIAC. The ENIAC was a functional computer that performed both arithmetic and logical operations.

The true model for modern computers is the EDVAC, which came to be recognized as the Von Neumann Machines. It was an electric computer that had the used the stored program concept. It could be programmed to perform many different functions as well, like logarithms, bell curves, etc.

(In Britain as well the government subsidized the colossal, also for military purposes, and Alan Turing is an important figure here.)

So, in summary, here is the pattern:

Slide Rule (based of the principles of mathematicians, cooperation of mathematicians)
Babbage (Government funded)
Hollerith (Government funded, corportion built around government purposes: IBM)
ENIAC (Government funded, University system)
EDVAC(Government funded, University system)

From then on, computers went into their successive "generations" of the modern computer:

First Generation (hardware and software, assembly language)
Second Generation (transistors)
Third generation(OS, IC, Chips) time sharing
Fourth generaiton (1970s, personal computers, etc.)
Fifth Generation(parallel computing)

The government also played a role in each of these generations and that is when corporations became even more sponsored by the government, and the market even more regulated in a certain sense.

But that's just computers, and computers have been one of the most heavily subsidized inventions in history.

Each one of these also had a role in the government:

Light bulbs (electric companies always funded by government, also, principles developed by university system)

Air plaines (concepts date back centuries to people like da Vinci. Heavily invested by the governemnt for the purposes of warfare. Government run corporations in the 1940s and 1950s. Aeronautical industry heavily subsidized)

Mobile phones (AT&T heavily subsidized by government)

None of this had anything to do with the free-market: Nylon, teflon, kevlar, etc. because they were created in a system that is not free-market and they are based off of scientific principles developed by university systems.

IcarusAngel

5th July 2009, 22:12

Havet

6th July 2009, 00:19

The first concept of a computer was not the Jacquard loom. The Jacquard loom isn't even a computer - it doesn't compute anything. The Jacquard loom is an example of the stroed program concept - it allows for not only the keying in of parameters of a problem but also allows for the patterns themselves to be stored and used whenever needed. well that depends on the definition of a computer, but okay

The first example of a computer was probably something like the abacus - not the loom engine - which actually allowed you to perform mathematical operations. Abacuses were developed in a time when mathematics was very much the performance of highly educated men either sponsored by the state or trained by the state, or worked with the state.

why are you assuming it was all done by the state? What proof do you have? What if a person actually created it by himself, and then sold his idea, or the objects he created, to a state? Surely thats different than a state coming up with it?

Anyway, where is the proof? Don't assume right away, let's have the historical facts straight. Because facts ARE facts right? On this matter i wasnt able to get historical evidence, but if you did, then show it to me.

Also, slide rules are another example of something that computes or is a manual calculator, and they were also developed in a time that had nothing to do with a free-market, being invented by Oughtred in the 1600s based off the principles of Napier. Blaise Pascal designed mechanical calculators with gears that performed addition and subtraction in 1642 (probably why the Pascal language is named after him), and Leibniz created the Leibniz wheel in the 1600s as well. Again, these men were highly trained and privileged mathematicians living in a society that had nothing to do with market principles.

now wait a second, now you DO recognize that these men and NOT goverment created these inventions, but didnt go under market principles. Well sure, i never said ALL inventions were motivated by profit, and i can understand that at the time even if they wanted they couldnt've made a big profit out of it. Sometimes if profit is your motive, quickly putting your invention on sale might not even be the best way. Anyway, i hope we can agree on this: market principles do not always drive innovation, but market principles CAN drive innovation. And individuals acting on their own instead of governments.

Babbage is the true inventor of the concept of the computer for the 1800s and he continued the work of Pascal and Leibniz by creating a prototype Difference Engine. He was also subsidized by the British government. However, he abandoned the project to work on the Analytical Engine for which he never could get funds. right so far

It's been shown he could have made his invention (Computer Science: An Introduction), but was held back only for the lack of funding.

That is truly the "market at work." Had people like Baggage been allowed to progress, and Maxwell, etc., humanity would have progressed far faster than it has.

So you propose to steal a vast majority in order to fund innovation? Why didnt the vast majority recognize the benefits of the invention and contributed voluntarily? I'm not talking about private funders, im talking about setting organizations, or something else. There's no need for people to go steal right away. This could all have been done faster AND without theft.

Anyway, the first computers that were put into mass practice were done so by the government. Ok

Hollerith was employed by the U.S. Census Bureau in the 1890s and he realized that by the old methods by the time they got the census counted it would be time to conduct a new census, as it took years to count and the Constitution indicates that an accounting should occur every ten years. So he invented electromechanical counting equipent that used punch cards as input and created the International Business Machines (IBM) corporation.

So one of the first computing companies was created essentially for the purposes of government.

yeah and there are other examples. The atomic bomb used einstein principles to fit government purposes. Innovation DOESN'T always follow government purposes though.

However, IBM didn't invent the first electronic computer. Hollerith sold his single purpose machines to a variety of companies and it became a huge industry in the US, and none of them were modled off the multipurpose engine of Babbage. It it wasn't until 1937 that IBM invested in a multipurpose machine: Mark I.

The Mark I was a project at Harvard University. It was designed by Howard Aiken and it was only after starting did he become aware of Babbage, from whom he later claimed inspiration. It was completed in '44. However, it didn't incorporate vaccum tubes and was obsolete at about the time it was completed.

The ENIAC and EDVAC are the precursors to modern computers. The ENIAC came after the Mark I and was also funded by the US military and the University system. The military invested in it because of problems they were having with gun trajectories, where field testing often led to missed targets or friendly fire. So, the US Army sponsored the Moore School of Engineering and at the University of Pennsyvania. John Mauchly and J Presper Eckert invented the ENIAC. The ENIAC was a functional computer that performed both arithmetic and logical operations.

The true model for modern computers is the EDVAC, which came to be recognized as the Von Neumann Machines. It was an electric computer that had the used the stored program concept. It could be programmed to perform many different functions as well, like logarithms, bell curves, etc.

(In Britain as well the government subsidized the colossal, also for military purposes, and Alan Turing is an important figure here.)

ok

So, in summary, here is the pattern:

Slide Rule (based of the principles of mathematicians, cooperation of mathematicians)
Babbage (Government funded)
Hollerith (Government funded, corportion built around government purposes: IBM)
ENIAC (Government funded, University system)
EDVAC(Government funded, University system)

here is the pattern of computers, not of everything else.

From then on, computers went into their successive "generations" of the modern computer:

First Generation (hardware and software, assembly language)
Second Generation (transistors)
Third generation(OS, IC, Chips) time sharing
Fourth generaiton (1970s, personal computers, etc.)
Fifth Generation(parallel computing)

The government also played a role in each of these generations and that is when corporations became even more sponsored by the government, and the market even more regulated in a certain sense.

Light bulbs (electric companies always funded by government, also, principles developed by university system)

proof? facts? historical evidence?

Air plaines (concepts date back centuries to people like da Vinci. Heavily invested by the governemnt for the purposes of warfare. Government run corporations in the 1940s and 1950s. Aeronautical industry heavily subsidized)

da vinci was sponsored by government? Damn!

proof? facts? historical evidence?

Mobile phones (AT&T heavily subsidized by government)

proof? facts? historical evidence?

None of this had anything to do with the free-market: Nylon, teflon, kevlar, etc. because they were created in a system that is not free-market and they are based off of scientific principles developed by university systems.

well yes, since there has never BEEN a completely free market DOESNT MEAN the kind of inventions we saw were a product OF GOVERNMENT. Some where, most weren't, and most wouldve come up naturally, without government.

Havet

6th July 2009, 00:20

Independent sources:

http://www1.fccj.edu/jdebo/new_page_3.htm

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/comeniac.htm

http://www.crews.org/curriculum/ex/compsci/articles/history.htm

which mention figures like Hopper, Babbage, von Neumann (America's Turing) and so on.

Two good books: Computer Science: An Overview
Connecting with Computer Science (Anderson, Ferro, Hilton)

Barak Osama was right when he said that comptuers are a "government invention," as the EDVAC And ENIAC were government funded projects and the precursors of the modern computer.

Ironically, the market supposedly opened up AFTER government involvement, of course the government still plays a large role in nearly every industry including computing, and funds to the tune of billions of tax payer dollars.

hayenmill caught in yet ANOTHER lie.

sad to see your only objective is to prove me wrong rather than trying to convince me with facts. Guess whose life is caught in a lie.

EDIT: forgot to add something

it seems your argument is a classic 1 drop argument.

during 1930s in america, with black segregation, basically if anyone had "1 drop" of black blood they were classed as black, so basically if they had any black heritage they were classed as black.

In this case, if theres any government involvement, government takes all the credit, but funnily when something bad happens, its the capitalists fault and the government needs more power...

mikelepore

6th July 2009, 00:27

I do believe the original piece was ironico-sarcastical.

Thank you. This is approved by ARI. They can be found at www.ari.org (http://www.ari.org/)

Now I'm really confused. You mean the original post was a satire? If so, that wasn't obvious to me at all. And I also don't know what it has to do with the the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to understand the subtle political humor around here.

Communist Theory

6th July 2009, 00:28

Lose all faith in mankind in one easy step!

1. Read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

Havet

6th July 2009, 00:29

Well Objectivism states that every man should regard himself and his own happiness (or interests) as the highest end. That means any other human being should be valued as nothing more than a means to those ends. So if person A is an egoist, he believes that his interests are the only end worth valuing, and that everyone else (person B) can be used to further his ends (even at B's expense). So if he's telling person B to be an egoist, he's telling person B that he should regard his own interests as the ultimate end, and that other people (person A) may be used as means to that end. So person A, by spreading egoism, is really in a performative contradiction here, by saying one thing and preaching another. This position of egoism can be juxtaposed against the Kantian and Utilitarian concepts of the moral purpose of humans, the former stating that all humans are ends in themselves and the latter stating that they are all means to a greater social end.

Also, I don't see how you can say these things together without contradicting yourself:
[SIZE=2]"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
The blue is essentially a reiteration of the Kantian principle that an individual should be treated never as a mere means to an end but always simultaneously as an end in themselves (Kant's "kingdom of ends" proposition). What that means is, I cannot use you purely for my own interests, without respecting your own status as an end. something that would violate this would be slavery for example, as I am not considering your individual autonomy and your interests by giving you the option of being a means to an end.

The brownish part - your standard appeal to egoism - says that there is no moral imperative or purpose beyond self interest, including the treatment of others as ends. So going by this statement, I could enslave the entire human race, since after all, the pursuit of my own "rational self-interest and happiness" is the only moral purpose I need to worry about.

So which is it? If you choose the first statement then you're just a Kantian and if you choose the latter you have to deal with the performative contradiction illustrated in my first post.

I don't see how "self-interest as higher ideal" implies "other people are means to that ideal".

First, to survive one must always use others as means, and the goal of objectivism is to identify one's desires and the desires of others, and to work for your own desires without murdering, stealing or enslaving others. This is truly the means of "means to an ideal". They are not used, they rely on the voluntary consent of both parties. Obviously if one enslaves then one is a tool, a means without any voice in the transaction.

the purpose of that sentence is merely to identify certain "rights" of inviduals, and that the only correct way to engage with them is through their voluntary consent.

In a sense, we are all means to others, because we all benefit and depend to some extent on other's actions. As long as that is voluntary, then i dont see what all the fuss is about.

"So going by this statement, I could enslave the entire human race, since after all, the pursuit of my own "rational self-interest and happiness" is the only moral purpose I need to worry about"

and why do you think the two sentences are toguether? Precisely to explain that you cannot enslave the entire human race for your own happyness.

Havet

6th July 2009, 00:44

Lose all faith in mankind in one easy step!

1. Read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

actually hanging around in this forum makes me lose all my faith in mankind far more easily than reading any book.

IcarusAngel

6th July 2009, 01:48

IcarusAngel

6th July 2009, 02:02

Now I'm really confused. You mean the original post was a satire? If so, that wasn't obvious to me at all. And I also don't know what it has to do with the the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to understand the subtle political humor around here.

This has already been mentioned as the point of the post.

The article shows the cultish like devotion of Randians to apply their principles to areas where it doesn't belong, and the leaps that they make in doing so.

The article reads like cultish nonsense, perhaps even worse than post-modern or structuralist nonsense.

If Randians know so much about logic, why don't they work in areas with of computing, in boolean algebra, in analytic philosophy? Most of them are business oriented trolls sponsored by corporate funded organizations in vague areas of "philosophy."

If you want to learn about logic and reason, or about physics and perception, read these books:

http://home.comcast.net/~kidicarus23/russellbooks.png

The one on the left is even recommended by the AMS, with two stars (most books get zero stars). Of course, there are other books, like Tarski etc.

Although, to be perfectly honest, you could probably learn more about logical principles and problem solving at the Heating & Air Conditioning site, than you ever could at the Ayn Rand institute or Mises forums.

Communist Theory

6th July 2009, 02:08

actually hanging around in this forum makes me lose all my faith in mankind far more easily than reading any book.
The internet is the cause...

Nwoye

6th July 2009, 03:19

I don't see how "self-interest as higher ideal" implies "other people are means to that ideal".
Because it's saying that our own self-interest is the only moral obligation we have (which really means we have no moral obligations). We owe nothing to anyone else, nor to the greater social good. We don't even owe someone the choice of being a means to our own self-interest - because after all, only self-interest is the higher ideal, not a respect for individual autonomy or a universal application of a standard of rights.

First, to survive one must always use others as means, and the goal of objectivism is to identify one's desires and the desires of others, and to work for your own desires without murdering, stealing or enslaving others. This is truly the means of "means to an ideal". They are not used, they rely on the voluntary consent of both parties. Obviously if one enslaves then one is a tool, a means without any voice in the transaction. Why not? Because people have rights? Because I have to respect everyone else's rights (treat them as ends)? That's Kantian ethics.

the purpose of that sentence is merely to identify certain "rights" of inviduals, and that the only correct way to engage with them is through their voluntary consent.
If individuals have rights (the right to be treated as an end), then by being a rational being I owe it to them to treat them as such. Therefore, my own self-interest is not the ultimate moral ideal.

In a sense, we are all means to others, because we all benefit and depend to some extent on other's actions. As long as that is voluntary, then i dont see what all the fuss is about.
And this is exactly what Kant proposed.
"[the rational being] must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."

"So going by this statement, I could enslave the entire human race, since after all, the pursuit of my own "rational self-interest and happiness" is the only moral purpose I need to worry about"

and why do you think the two sentences are toguether? Precisely to explain that you cannot enslave the entire human race for your own happyness.
Why not? Because people have rights? Because I have to respect everyone else's rights (treat them as ends)? That's Kantian ethics.

Look, I have no problem with amoralism, but trying to construe psychological egoism into an ethical system, like was done with Objectivism, and then trying to justify individual rights within that framework is just trying to have it both ways. Besides, as we've seen here, the logical extension of your argument is the application of Kant's categorical imperative.

Havet

6th July 2009, 11:29

I consider myself an anarchist (although I'd be satisfied with a free socialist or utilitarian system), but science advanced when civilization advanced, esp. freer educational systems. Of course, the state has been an impediment to science at times, but you could also state that stateless societies impedid science considering they have lasted for years and have not done anything

I suppose, but the state is a far more prosperous institution (it has been around for longer, in different forms, with different excuses to stop science advance). We've had faraohs, great roman empires, kings and the church, totalitarian governments and dictatorships and now big business using the current government power.

I think the critical point to make here is, like you said, freer educational systems, being free to do what you want and invent what you want, with or without profit motive, looks like a better alternative than to rely on hierarchical judgement that decides when you get to invent. Now you may have a preference than innovation should be done without a profit motive, but I don't see the problem of both coexisting. There are other ways to fund projects without having to convince investors that they can make a lot of money in that product.

For "science" to be considered an anarchist endeavor you'd have to show that:

A. Science was developed ONLY in this free-market system, and was done with ideas and resources that were acquired from this free-market system.

B. That scientists were trained according to free-market principles.
and,
C. That scientists were free-marketeers themselves.

All three of those are blatantly false.

well i didn't intend to consider science an anarchist endeavor. Science, being the use of reason and logic to formulate theories to explain the world (very crude def) is likely to work better when it is done by people's own free will than under compulsion (a state, a king, someone forcing a gun to their heads).

Consider the following statement: "You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent."

I think you could easily agree to this. Also, of course science can be developed in free market and non free market systems. There has been evidence of both. And there has also been evidence of free market science being developed by nonfreemarket developed ideas and of nonfreemarket science being developed by freemarket ideas.

Again, i agree, you dont need scientists trained under free market principles (ill assume this is your critique of profit motive) in order to make science.

And i agree again scientists dont need to be free marketeers themselves (they dont need to sell their product to live). They can live off something else and use science as a hobby. Who knows? As long as they are free to do what they want, i don't see how this could be in impediment.

I don't take credit for other people's work as Libertarians do. The only scientist mentioned in the "Scientific 100 (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html)," for example, is Noam Chomsky, and he is an egalitarian anarchist, not a free-market anarchist.

What do you mean by this? what examples do you have? are you criticizing that most libertarians don't care of intellectual property? or something else perhaps?

[/FONT]
Another LIE.

All of my sources back up everything I said, with only some minor differences. For example, the first souce says that the ENIAC is the predecessor to modern computers. I claim it's the EDVAC considering it was binary and had the stored program concept. Either way, both are heavily government involved.

Computers seemed to be designed for the tax system, and the military. It's no coincidence that Pascal's farther was a tax officer and he and his farther spent hours figuring out how much each citizen owed in taxes.

[/FONT]

Well yes, your sources backed up everything of the computer, and i said i agreed with them. But you didnt show sources for the other inventions. I dont know if you should bother though, i think that we might be on the same page already. The main point i was trying to make is that you don't need public money to make science. You need some money, sure, but it doesnt need to be stolen, it can be voluntarily delivered or traded.

The atomic bomb was innovate for bomb production. Russell's mathematics was also helpful for the design of bombs.

However, neither Russell nor Einstein can be blamed for the conflicts capitalist countries get themselves into.

Yes, of course, maybe science could be doing something better than building bombs, but maybe they could be doing something better than refining engineering designs or mass producing cheap electronic equipment as well.

well, here you can see one of the examples i gave above. freemarket principles were used to develop nonfreemarket science. the reverse can happen, or any of the other two (freemarket principles make freemarket science or nonfreemarket principles make nonfreemarket science).

Yes perhaps science could be put to better use than to just make new cellphones. But do you know what it costs, not in money, but in time and effort, to go through all the food regulations and housing regulations in order to innovate? In europe there's even a size limit to some fruits!

A ridiculous analogy, a logical fallacy.

The EDVAC and the ENIAC and the computers designed for tabulation and arithmetic, and also military purposes, were not "one drop" in the history of computing, but large pieces of the puzzle.

Many programming languages came out of this as well, like "COBOL," even though it is associated with business.

Computers today are heavily regulated by market regulations and by government regulations.

the point is not that they are "one drop" in the history of computing, but "one drop" in the history of government intervention and regulation, and that you shouldnt proceed to claim everything that has a single drop of government is all a product of government, but when things start going wrong, its the capitalists fault and the lack of government intervention.

I'm not going to write a "history of everything" just so you can continue to troll, even after being proven wrong. Anybody can go out and read a history of the political systems and scientific inventions and see how "free-market capitalist" it truly was.

i'm not trolling, and i have not been proven wrong. Dont you see that this method is flawed? We shouldnt be looking to prove the other wrong, but to convince him we are right.

Hey, i know free market capitalism never truly existed, but i do now that when the freedom to trade was greater, even though not completely free, people had more reasons and more actual freedom to engage in scientific research.

Jimmie Higgins

6th July 2009, 11:54

Step 11: Write really long posts that don't make sense and be sure to include pseudo-mathematical formulas.

Sorry to be so snarky with that whole "step 11" thing, it's just that I hate when Objectivists try to push their collectivistic capitalist system on me. I just can't stand all this collectivized labor under capitalism that goes to enrich Bill Gates and all thoes guys. It will be so much nicer when we overthrow capitalism so that I can have an induvidual democratic input into what happens with my labor just like each of my co-workers and all other workers in other workplaces.

Oops was I being snarky again? But seriously - the same capitalist system that gave us the assembly line and trench-warfare and is "individualistic"?

Havet

6th July 2009, 12:49

Because it's saying that our own self-interest is the only moral obligation we have (which really means we have no moral obligations). We owe nothing to anyone else, nor to the greater social good. We don't even owe someone the choice of being a means to our own self-interest - because after all, only self-interest is the higher ideal, not a respect for individual autonomy or a universal application of a standard of rights.

Well that sentence would be a contradiction if the original sentence didn't include that one's RATIONAL self interest could only be achieved by sacrificing no one and being sacrificed by no one. I think that is why the included the term rational, because she viewed as irrational that one would seek his self-interest at the expense of others, by harming them, murdering them, enslaving them or stealing them.

Why not? Because people have rights? Because I have to respect everyone else's rights (treat them as ends)? That's Kantian ethics. Well i don't care how you call them, but if truly came from Kant, then it is an interesting remark, given that Kant was Rand's biggest enemy.

If individuals have rights (the right to be treated as an end), then by being a rational being I owe it to them to treat them as such. Therefore, my own self-interest is not the ultimate moral ideal. "Therefore, my own rational self-interest, as a rational being, would be the ultimate moral ideal"

And this is exactly what Kant proposed.
"[the rational being] must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."

Interesting, seems like rand was a bit unreasonable when being so quick to criticize kant.

Look, I have no problem with amoralism, but trying to construe psychological egoism into an ethical system, like was done with Objectivism, and then trying to justify individual rights within that framework is just trying to have it both ways. Besides, as we've seen here, the logical extension of your argument is the application of Kant's categorical imperative.Well i think you mightve taken some wrong conclusions. Here's a little more on the subject:

On self-interest

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics.

The term “interests” is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of: man’s values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A man’s “interests” depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue, his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.
Desires (or feelings or emotions or wishes or whims) are not tools of cognition; they are not a valid standard of value, nor a valid criterion of man’s interests. The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.
To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to deserve no further consideration.
On selfishness:

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.
Moral obligation:

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.
and i think thats enough for now :lol:

mykittyhasaboner

6th July 2009, 17:07

Nwoye

6th July 2009, 19:27

Well that sentence would be a contradiction if the original sentence didn't include that one's RATIONAL self interest could only be achieved by sacrificing no one and being sacrificed by no one. I think that is why the included the term rational, because she viewed as irrational that one would seek his self-interest at the expense of others, by harming them, murdering them, enslaving them or stealing them.
first of all, what is "rational" self-interest, and what sets it apart from irrational self-interest? Is it in my rational self-interest only if it actually benefits me? if I do something that negatively affects me is it against my rational self-interest? and is it therefore unethical?

And how can you possibly say that it is always and everywhere rational to consider other peoples interests (treat them as ends)? If I'm Kim Jong Il, is it not in my rational self interest to oppress my country in the name of my prosperity?

I genuinely don't understand how just throwing the term "rational" in there makes it so that your self-interest everywhere and always coincides with treating people as ends.

Well i don't care how you call them, but if truly came from Kant, then it is an interesting remark, given that Kant was Rand's biggest enemy. yeah. please excuse my blatant appeal to authority, but there's a reason no influential academics take Rand or Objectivism seriously.

"Therefore, my own rational self-interest, as a rational being, would be the ultimate moral ideal"You didn't address my point. If people have the right as rational beings to be treated as ends (which is what you seems to be proposing), then I as a rational owe it to them to treat them as such. Therefore, the treatment of other rational beings in accordance with their rights is the highest ethical ideal.

Interesting, seems like rand was a bit unreasonable when being so quick to criticize kant.completely disregarding the most important philosopher in ethics is a bit unreasonable yes. she probably just heard something about "duty" and decided to ignore his whole philosophy.

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics. addressed above.

The term “interests” is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of: man’s values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A man’s “interests” depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue, his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.
Desires (or feelings or emotions or wishes or whims) are not tools of cognition; they are not a valid standard of value, nor a valid criterion of man’s interests. The mere fact that a man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good, nor that its achievement is actually to his interest.
To claim that a man’s interests are sacrificed whenever a desire of his is frustrated—is to hold a subjectivist view of man’s values and interests. Which means: to believe that it is proper, moral and possible for man to achieve his goals, regardless of whether they contradict the facts of reality or not. Which means: to hold an irrational or mystical view of existence. Which means: to deserve no further consideration.I don't really understand the intention of this passage, and it seems like the bolded sentence would be the exact opposite of egoism.

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. What? I don't see how you could possibly argue that the rational (we're discussing this word above) interests of two men could not clash. That's just an absolutely ridiculous attempt to sidestep the problems with Objectivism.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.okay. I don't see how that's relevant but okay. I would never say that fulfilling your self interest is inherently evil, and I don't think anyone would.

Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.As for the brownish part - why? I owe no moral obligation to them, why should I even regard their choices or their interest? As I explained above, just adding the proviso that your self-interest must be "rational" does not avoid this problem, as you would have to somehow prove that it is rational in every conceivable situation to consider someone else's interests (to treat them as ends).

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.This is simply not an adequate excuse for faulty ethics. You made a point earlier in this thread to say that humans naturally treat others as means to an end, to which I replied that such an action is totally legitimate if the person is treated simultaneously as an end. For example, if I ask a hot dog vender to hand me a hot dog, I'm using him as a means to an (the end being enjoying a delicious hot dog). However, no one would object to this situation, as the vender could easily refuse to do so. I'm not exploiting him or harming him in any way.

The point is, all of us have to interact with each other, and our actions distinctly affect one another. What kind of actions are acceptable is what ethics is all about. So far, Objectivism has proposed a horribly faulty and inconsistent way of looking at ethics.

Havet

6th July 2009, 19:50

first of all, what is "rational" self-interest, and what sets it apart from irrational self-interest? Is it in my rational self-interest only if it actually benefits me? if I do something that negatively affects me is it against my rational self-interest? and is it therefore unethical?

As rand stated it the point was that "rational self-interest" considered men as ends and therefore the only action one could undertake with them would require their volitional consent, whereas vulgar "irrational" self-interest did not consider them as ends and one would be legitimate to do whatever he wished in order to achieve his ends. Rand calls it rational because she believed irrational to deal with men by any other way than through reason, consent and voluntary agreement.

And how can you possibly say that it is always and everywhere rational to consider other peoples interests (treat them as ends)? If I'm Kim Jong Il, is it not in my rational self interest to oppress my country in the name of my prosperity?

Well i dont say it. Rand just throws the word rational to set appart selfinterest that treats others as ends from selfinterest that treats others as means. If you're Kim Jong Il, is it in your "irrational" self-interest to oppress people, because like I said before, rand did not consider rational to use force unless in self-defense.

I genuinely don't understand how just throwing the term "rational" in there makes it so that your self-interest everywhere and always coincides with treating people as ends. Don't worry, its just semantics on her part. She just decided to define rational self interest like that, in contrast to tradition self interest (or "irrational" self interest).

You didn't address my point. If people have the right as rational beings to be treated as ends (which is what you seems to be proposing), then I as a rational owe it to them to treat them as such. Therefore, the treatment of other rational beings in accordance with their rights is the highest ethical ideal.

I would say what she proposed was that "the treatment of other rational beings in accordance with their rights is the only way for one to pursue their own rational self-interest."

Basically, you can only pursue your own self interest, no matter how extreme, as long as you treat others as ends.

I don't really understand the intention of this passage, and it seems like the bolded sentence would be the exact opposite of egoism.

thats merely a side note to the conclusion that if you do not achieve a self-interest of yours that doesnt mean you sacrificed your self interest in trying to obtain it.

What? I don't see how you could possibly argue that the rational (we're discussing this word above) interests of two men could not clash. That's just an absolutely ridiculous attempt to sidestep the problems with Objectivism.

translation to english: rational interests of men do not clash, which means, men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, when pursuing their seperate interests, will never enter into conflict.

As for the brownish part - why? I owe no moral obligation to them, why should I even regard their choices or their interest? As I explained above, just adding the proviso that your self-interest must be "rational" does not avoid this problem, as you would have to somehow prove that it is rational in every conceivable situation to consider someone else's interests (to treat them as ends).

rand held that the only way for someone to follow their self-interest without entering into conflicts is for that person to be rational, which means, to enter in agreements with others only by everyone's voluntary consent, which means treating others as ends is a condition for someone to follow their rational self-interest, but not necessary for someone just following their self-interest.

This is simply not an adequate excuse for faulty ethics. You made a point earlier in this thread to say that humans naturally treat others as means to an end, to which I replied that such an action is totally legitimate if the person is treated simultaneously as an end. For example, if I ask a hot dog vender to hand me a hot dog, I'm using him as a means to an (the end being enjoying a delicious hot dog). However, no one would object to this situation, as the vender could easily refuse to do so. I'm not exploiting him or harming him in any way.

The point is, all of us have to interact with each other, and our actions distinctly affect one another. What kind of actions are acceptable is what ethics is all about. So far, Objectivism has proposed a horribly faulty and inconsistent way of looking at ethics.

i agree with you, but i dont see how this goes against what rand said.

you say ethics is about what kinds of actions are acceptable, and what rand says is only acceptable is every action done by the voluntary agreement/consent of both parties involved, without the use of force. How is this faulty and inconsistent?

Nwoye

7th July 2009, 22:12

As rand stated it the point was that "rational self-interest" considered men as ends and therefore the only action one could undertake with them would require their volitional consent, whereas vulgar "irrational" self-interest did not consider them as ends and one would be legitimate to do whatever he wished in order to achieve his ends. Rand calls it rational because she believed irrational to deal with men by any other way than through reason, consent and voluntary agreement.
I don't know if Ayn Rand was familiar with... philosophy, but normally you have to prove stuff. I've never read Rand so I don't know if she expands on it, but that's just a baseless assumption meant to justify her ethical system.

Well i dont say it. Rand just throws the word rational to set appart selfinterest that treats others as ends from selfinterest that treats others as means. If you're Kim Jong Il, is it in your "irrational" self-interest to oppress people, because like I said before, rand did not consider rational to use force unless in self-defense.
... okay. there's just absolutely no philosophical basis for that.

Don't worry, its just semantics on her part. She just decided to define rational self interest like that, in contrast to tradition self interest (or "irrational" self interest).
but always treating people as ends does not coincide with (rational) self interest.

I would say what she proposed was that "the treatment of other rational beings in accordance with their rights is the only way for one to pursue their own rational self-interest."
non-sequitor. what is "rational self-interest" by the way?

Basically, you can only pursue your own self interest, no matter how extreme, as long as you treat others as ends.
that's an incredibly dull philosophy then. And if this is true, then self-interest is still not the highest moral ideal, meaning shes not an egoist. as I've said before, you can't just throw "rational" in there and change the definition to avoid this problem.

translation to english: rational interests of men do not clash, which means, men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, when pursuing their seperate interests, will never enter into conflict.
what if you and I both come upon unused land and want to mix our labor with it, at the same time? what do we do, fight for it? that's a conflict of self interest.

rand held that the only way for someone to follow their self-interest without entering into conflicts is for that person to be rational, which means, to enter in agreements with others only by everyone's voluntary consent, which means treating others as ends is a condition for someone to follow their rational self-interest, but not necessary for someone just following their self-interest.
but why is that rational?

i agree with you, but i dont see how this goes against what rand said.

you say ethics is about what kinds of actions are acceptable, and what rand says is only acceptable is every action done by the voluntary agreement/consent of both parties involved, without the use of force. How is this faulty and inconsistent?
I misunderstood your point. disregard what I said haha.