1) What is the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy? Describe each of the two alternatives involved in this basic metaphysical issue. Give an example of each. Which viewpoint does Ayn Rand champion?
a) The primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence. (pg. 24, second full para down .)
b) Primacy of Existence: is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature and identity… Primacy of Consciousness: The notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine)… (pg. 24, Third full para down.)
c) Primacy of Existence: Francis Bacon saying “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.” Primacy of Consciousness: “If there is no god, then who created the universe?” or primitive people doing “rain dances” in order to get the rain god to bring them rain.
d) Primacy of Existence.
2) What is the source of the reversal involved in the primacy of consciousness viewpoint? Does the ability to grasp the distinction necessary for the primacy of existence viewpoint come to man automatically?
a) The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived…(Pg. 24, last para)
b) No. “This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.” (pg. 24, bottom)
3) Can the universe, as a whole, come into or go out of existence according to Ayn Rand? If, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the universe as a whole always existed and always will exist, then doesn’t this contradict the findings of scientists, especially given the “big bang” theory of the universe?
a) No. (pg. 25, first full para down.)
b) While the universe may not have always existed in its present form and state, it has always existed, any other conclusion flies in the face of the axiom of existence, which is an impossibility. Physicist Stephen Hawking doesn't seem to think that the universe "came into being": "...he began to question the big bang theory, which by then most had accepted. Perhaps, he suggested, there was never a start and would be no end, but just change -- a constant transition of one "universe" giving way to another through glitches in space-time." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bphawk.html
4) What does it mean to Ayn Rand to say that man is capable of “creation”? What is the “best and briefest identification of man’s power in regard to nature”? Who originally formulated this idea?
a) “Creation” means the power to bring into existence an arrangement of natural elements that had not existed before. “Creation” does not mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing. (pg. 25, last para)
b) “Nature to be commanded must be obeyed”
c) Francis Bacon
5) What law governs all the countless forms, motions, combinations, and dissolutions of elements within the universe –from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life? What does Ayn Rand describe as “the metaphysically given”. Is the law of identity what philosopher John Locke meant when he spoke of “the law of nature” (See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Of the State of Nature, Section 6.)?
a) The law of identity (pg.25, first full para down.)
b) “Nature is the metaphysically given –i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition."
c) I tend to think yes, to the extent that Locke's philosophy make any sense at all.
6) How does man “discover and accept the metaphysically given”?
a) “To perceive existence, to discover the characteristics or properties (the identities) of the things that exist, means to discover and accept the metaphysically given.” (pg. 25, Second full para down)
7) What is Ayn Rand’s position with regard to the human mind and the Law of Identity, that is to say, does she regard the human mind as subject to the Law of Identity? Does Ayn Rand’s view regarding the human mind and the law of identity mean that she believed that the human mind does not possess the faculty of volition?
a) Yes, she regards the human mind as having an identity or nature, like all things. “But man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity….” (pg. 26, 3rd full para down)
b) “The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter…just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them…." (pg. 26, last para.)
8) Although man’s “…faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature…” how does it open “…the way for a host of contradictions…”? What must be accepted because it cannot be changed? What must never be “…accepted uncritically…”?
a) If men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man. (pg. 27, first full para down)
b) The metaphysical must be accepted because it cannot be changed. (pg. 27, Second full para.)
c) The “man-made”, ie, “…any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man”. (pg. 27, second and third full para’s down)
9) Given Ayn Rand’s views on the metaphysical and the man-made, did she believe that “40 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”? Why or why not? Does this mean that one should always disagree with the majority?
a) No, she believed that any number of people could be wrong. (pg. 27, second full para down)
b) "Truth" for Rand is the conformance of one's mind to the metaphysically given, not "whatever the majority says". For instance, Galileo was right that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, even though the majority thought he was wrong.
c) No. The proper procedure is to decide whether the majority is right or wrong. Whether the majority agrees with you or not is not important with regard to the truth of a particular idea. Ayn Rand did not advocate nonconformism for its own sake.
10) Did Ayn Rand think that the “metaphysically given” could be true or false? Given the answer to the first part of this question, what did Ayn Rand define “truth” as?
a) No, the “…metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is –and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments, i.e., his ideas, by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality.” (pg. 27, third full para down.)
b) “Truth” is the correspondence of human ideas to reality.
11) What example does Ayn Rand give in the essay to show the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made? How about this example: a person takes an action that causes an unintended series of causal events to take place that eventually leads to the death of a person he doesn’t know and isn’t aware of in some far-off distant place ; is this the metaphysically given or the man-made, some combination of the two, or something completely different? (Similar to the butterfly flaps its wings in North America, which is a contributing cause to a typhoon in China, but substitute the butterfly with a person clapping his hands.)
a) A flood occurring in an uninhabited island is the metaphysically given, a dam built to contain the flood water is the man-made.(Starting on page 28, top)
b) I tend to think it is not man-made because it was not a result that was chosen by the man clapping his hands, nor was it a result that he could have reasonably foreseen by the use of his mind. (Remember that Ayn Rand defines the “man made” as “…any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man…” (pg. 27, first full para.) Page 28, top, Ayn Rand’s example of the dam breaking may be similar: “…if the builders miscalculate and the dam breaks, the disaster is metaphysical in its origin, but intensified by man in its consequences…”
12) What do concepts like “chance” and “contingency” refer to for Ayn Rand? According to Ayn Rand’s definition of “chance” what does it mean to say that the results of rolling dice are subject to “chance”? Is it possible for a person to predict with certainty what the die roll result would be according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
a) “…concepts that refer only to man’s lack of knowledge, such as “chance” or “contingency”…” (pg. 29, top)
b) It means that the person rolling the dice usually lacks the knowledge necessary to know what the results of the die roll will be, other than to say that if the dice are “fair” (i.e., not rigged), then the result of any given number, 1-6, showing up on a die is equal to the probability of any other number showing up.
c) Yes, if he had enough prior knowledge of the physics involved (such as the angle of the die roll, the force of the throw, etc.), as well as what the dice were showing before the dice were roled, then somebody could predict with certainty what the result of roling dice would be. (It would require knowledge of a lot of factors, and generally just wouldn't be worth the time or money to figure out.) This position reflects the idea that there is no "inherrent randomness" in the universe, I think.
13) What did Ayn Rand mean by a “package deal”? What is an example of package deal?
a) “Package dealing is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance of value” (pg. 24, footnote)
b) “A disastrous intellectual package-deal, put over on us by the theoreticians of statism, is the equation of economic power with political power. You have heard it expressed in such bromides as: “A hungry man is not free,” or “It makes no difference to a worker whether he takes orders from a businessman or from a bureaucrat….The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power”, between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monolpoy on the use of physical force” (“America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)
14) Distinguish a “man-made” fact from a “metaphysically given fact”.
a) (pg. 31, 2nd full para down.)
15) In what two respects does the faculty of volition give man a special status? What does Ayn Rand mean when she says “Nothing can force a man to think.” (pg. 31)? How does one “change” other men given what has been said so far?
a) 1. Unlike the metaphysically given, man’s products, whether material or intellectual, are not to be accepted uncritically. And, 2. by its metaphysically given nature, a man’s volition is outside the power of other men.(pg. 31, 3rd full para down)
b) “Others may offer him incentives or impediments, rewards or punishments, they may destroy his brain by drugs or by the blow of a club, but they cannot order his mind to function: this is in his exclusive, sovereign power.” (pg. 31, 3rd full para down)
I not certain of Rand's position on this issue, but I interpret this to mean that you can hold a gun on someone and force them to do work for you, but you cannot force them to recognize that you are holding a gun on them and that if they don’t do as you say, the consequence is probable death, all of which requires thought, and is not automatic. If he chooses not to think, a man will not even recognize the danger of a gun, and all you could do is kill him, not get him to work.
c) “In regard to man…’to change’ does not mean to force….The only means of ‘changing’ men is the same as the means of ‘changing’ nature: knowledge –which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their errors.”
16) What does Ayn Rand view as the psychological or emotional consequence of someone who does not have any “…knowledge of the nature or the functioning of a human consciousness…” (pg. 29, 2nd full para down).
On the implicit premise that consciousness has no identity, men alternate between the feeling that they possess some sort of omnipotent power over their consciousness and can abuse it with impunity (“It doesn’t matter, it’s only in my mind”) –and the feeling that they have no choice, no control, that the content of consciousness is innately predetermined, that they are victims of the impenetrable mystery inside their own skulls, prisoners of an unknowable enemy, helpless automatons driven by inexplicable emotions (“I can’t help it, that’s the way I am”). (pg. 29, 2nd full para down.)
17) Given her views on “the metaphysical versus the man made”, did Ayn Rand believe in the idea of “innate endowment”, i.e., the belief that some people have an inner talent or skill that they are born with?
No, she did not. (Pg. 30, first full para down)
18) What is “rewriting reality”? What are some of the examples Ayn Rand gives of “rewriting reality”? Give your own example of rewriting reality.
a) Unable to determine what they can or cannot change, some men attempt to “rewrite reality”, i.e., to alter the nature of the metaphysically given. (pg. 30, Second full para down)
b) (pg. 30, Second full para down)
c) [Group discussion]
19) At the beginning of “The Metaphysical versus The Man-Made”, Ayn Rand quotes from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
Placing this quote in a rational context, what does Ayn Rand regard as “accepting the things I cannot change”? What does Ayn Rand say the part “to change the things I can” means? What does Ayn Rand regard as “knowing the difference”? With regard to man, what does “to accept” mean and what does “to change” mean?
a) In regard to nature, ‘to accept what I cannot change’ means to accept the metaphysically given. (pg. 32, First full para down)
b) “To change the things I can” means to strive to rearrange the given by acquiring knowledge –as science and technology (e.g., medicine) are doing. (pg. 32, First full para down)
c) “Knowing the difference” means to know that one cannot rebel against nature, and, when no action is possible, one must accept nature serenely. (pg. 32, First full para down)
d) “In regard to man, “to accept” does not mean to agree, and “to change” does not mean to force. What one must accept is the fact that the minds of other men are not in one’s power, as one’s own mind is not in theirs; one must accept their right to make their own choices, and one must agree or disagree, accept or reject, join or oppose them, as one’s mind dictates. The only means of “changing” men is the same as the means of “changing” nature: knowledge –which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their own errors. “To know the difference” means that one must never accept man-made evils (there are no others) in silent resignation, one must never submit to them voluntarily –and even if one is imprisoned in some ghastly dictatorship’s jail, where no action is possible, serenity comes from the knowledge that one does not accept it.” (pg. 32, Second full para down)
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Dec. 2, 2007 Meeting: "The Metaphysical versus the Man-made"
When/Where: Sign up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for time and location details.
What:"The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It
Please print out these questions:
1) What is the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy? Describe each of the two alternatives involved in this basic metaphysical issue. Give an example of each. Which viewpoint does Ayn Rand champion?
2) What is the source of the reversal involved in the primacy of consciousness viewpoint? Does the ability to grasp the distinction necessary for the primacy of existence viewpoint come to man automatically?
3) Can the universe, as a whole, come into or go out of existence according to Ayn Rand? If, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the universe as a whole always existed and always will exist, then doesn’t this contradict the findings of scientists, especially given the “big bang” theory of the universe?
4) What does it mean to Ayn Rand to say that man is capable of “creation”? What is the “best and briefest identification of man’s power in regard to nature”? Who originally formulated this idea?
5) What law governs all the countless forms, motions, combinations, and dissolutions of elements within the universe –from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life? What does Ayn Rand describe as “the metaphysically given”. Is the law of identity what philosopher John Locke meant when he spoke of “the law of nature” (See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Of the State of Nature, Section 6.)?
6) How does man “discover and accept the metaphysically given”?
7) What is Ayn Rand’s position with regard to the human mind and the Law of Identity, that is to say, does she regard the human mind as subject to the Law of Identity? Does Ayn Rand’s view regarding the human mind and the law of identity mean that she believed that the human mind does not possess the faculty of volition?
8) Although man’s “…faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature…” how does it open “…the way for a host of contradictions…”? What must be accepted because it cannot be changed? What must never be “…accepted uncritically…”?
9) Given Ayn Rand’s views on the metaphysical and the man-made, did she believe that “40 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”? Why or why not? Does this mean that one should always disagree with the majority?
10) Did Ayn Rand think that the “metaphysically given” could be true or false? Given the answer to the first part of this question, what did Ayn Rand define “truth” as?
11) What example does Ayn Rand give in the essay to show the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made? How about this example: a person takes an action that causes an unintended series of causal events to take place that eventually leads to the death of a person he doesn’t know and isn’t aware of in some far-off distant place ; is this the metaphysically given or the man-made, some combination of the two, or something completely different? (Similar to the butterfly flaps its wings in North America, which is a contributing cause to a typhoon in China, but substitute the butterfly with a person clapping his hands.)
12) What do concepts like “chance” and “contingency” refer to for Ayn Rand? According to Ayn Rand’s definition of “chance” what does it mean to say that the results of rolling dice are subject to “chance”? Is it possible for a person to predict with certainty what the die roll result would be according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
13) What did Ayn Rand mean by a “package deal”? What is an example of package deal?
14) Distinguish a “man-made” fact from a “metaphysically given fact”.
15) In what two respects does the faculty of volition give man a special status? What does Ayn Rand mean when she says “Nothing can force a man to think.” (pg. 31)? How does one “change” other men given what has been said so far?
16) What does Ayn Rand view as the psychological or emotional consequence of someone who does not have any “…knowledge of the nature or the functioning of a human consciousness…” (pg. 29, 2nd full para down).
17) Given her views on “the metaphysical versus the man made”, did Ayn Rand believe in the idea of “innate endowment”, i.e., the belief that some people have an inner talent or skill that they are born with?
18) What is “rewriting reality”? What are some of the examples Ayn Rand gives of “rewriting reality”? Give your own example of rewriting reality.
19) At the beginning of “The Metaphysical versus The Man-Made”, Ayn Rand quotes from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
Placing this quote in a rational context, what does Ayn Rand regard as “accepting the things I cannot change”? What does Ayn Rand say the part “to change the things I can” means? What does Ayn Rand regard as “knowing the difference”? With regard to man, what does “to accept” mean and what does “to change” mean?
What:"The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It
Please print out these questions:
1) What is the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy? Describe each of the two alternatives involved in this basic metaphysical issue. Give an example of each. Which viewpoint does Ayn Rand champion?
2) What is the source of the reversal involved in the primacy of consciousness viewpoint? Does the ability to grasp the distinction necessary for the primacy of existence viewpoint come to man automatically?
3) Can the universe, as a whole, come into or go out of existence according to Ayn Rand? If, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the universe as a whole always existed and always will exist, then doesn’t this contradict the findings of scientists, especially given the “big bang” theory of the universe?
4) What does it mean to Ayn Rand to say that man is capable of “creation”? What is the “best and briefest identification of man’s power in regard to nature”? Who originally formulated this idea?
5) What law governs all the countless forms, motions, combinations, and dissolutions of elements within the universe –from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life? What does Ayn Rand describe as “the metaphysically given”. Is the law of identity what philosopher John Locke meant when he spoke of “the law of nature” (See John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Of the State of Nature, Section 6.)?
6) How does man “discover and accept the metaphysically given”?
7) What is Ayn Rand’s position with regard to the human mind and the Law of Identity, that is to say, does she regard the human mind as subject to the Law of Identity? Does Ayn Rand’s view regarding the human mind and the law of identity mean that she believed that the human mind does not possess the faculty of volition?
8) Although man’s “…faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature…” how does it open “…the way for a host of contradictions…”? What must be accepted because it cannot be changed? What must never be “…accepted uncritically…”?
9) Given Ayn Rand’s views on the metaphysical and the man-made, did she believe that “40 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”? Why or why not? Does this mean that one should always disagree with the majority?
10) Did Ayn Rand think that the “metaphysically given” could be true or false? Given the answer to the first part of this question, what did Ayn Rand define “truth” as?
11) What example does Ayn Rand give in the essay to show the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made? How about this example: a person takes an action that causes an unintended series of causal events to take place that eventually leads to the death of a person he doesn’t know and isn’t aware of in some far-off distant place ; is this the metaphysically given or the man-made, some combination of the two, or something completely different? (Similar to the butterfly flaps its wings in North America, which is a contributing cause to a typhoon in China, but substitute the butterfly with a person clapping his hands.)
12) What do concepts like “chance” and “contingency” refer to for Ayn Rand? According to Ayn Rand’s definition of “chance” what does it mean to say that the results of rolling dice are subject to “chance”? Is it possible for a person to predict with certainty what the die roll result would be according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
13) What did Ayn Rand mean by a “package deal”? What is an example of package deal?
14) Distinguish a “man-made” fact from a “metaphysically given fact”.
15) In what two respects does the faculty of volition give man a special status? What does Ayn Rand mean when she says “Nothing can force a man to think.” (pg. 31)? How does one “change” other men given what has been said so far?
16) What does Ayn Rand view as the psychological or emotional consequence of someone who does not have any “…knowledge of the nature or the functioning of a human consciousness…” (pg. 29, 2nd full para down).
17) Given her views on “the metaphysical versus the man made”, did Ayn Rand believe in the idea of “innate endowment”, i.e., the belief that some people have an inner talent or skill that they are born with?
18) What is “rewriting reality”? What are some of the examples Ayn Rand gives of “rewriting reality”? Give your own example of rewriting reality.
19) At the beginning of “The Metaphysical versus The Man-Made”, Ayn Rand quotes from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
Placing this quote in a rational context, what does Ayn Rand regard as “accepting the things I cannot change”? What does Ayn Rand say the part “to change the things I can” means? What does Ayn Rand regard as “knowing the difference”? With regard to man, what does “to accept” mean and what does “to change” mean?
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Proposed Answers to Questions for "Philosophy and a Sense of Life"
1) What is “metaphysics” (as used in this essay)?
Answer: See Ayn Rand Lexicon, entry on “Metaphysics"
2) Ayn Rand says that a “…sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man’s emotional responses and the essence of his character.” (Pg. 25, “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_, Ayn Rand) What does it mean for something to be “preconceptual”? What does it mean for something to be “subconscious” as opposed to “conscious” ( in other words, what is the “subconscious” for Rand)? What does it mean for something to be “implicit” in your mind, as opposed to “explicit”?
a) “Long before he is old enough to grasp such a concept as metaphysics, man makes choices, forms value-judgments, experiences emotions and acquires a certain implicit view of life.”
b) (See entry on “Subconscious” in Ayn Rand Lexicon) “Strictly speaking, Objectivism does not subscribe to the idea of an unconscious at all. We use the term ‘subconscious’ instead- and that is simply a name for the content of your mind that you are not focused on at any given moment. It is simply a repository for past information or conclusions that you were once conscious of in some form, but that are now stored beneath the threshold of consciousness…” (Quoting Leonard Peikoff, from Entry on “Subconscious” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
c) Implicit knowledge- Axiomatic concepts identify explicity what is merely implicit in the consciousness of an infant or an animal. (Implicit knowledge is passively held material which, to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness –a process which an infant learns to perform eventually, but which an animal’s consciousness is unable to perform.)” (See Ayn Rand Lexicon, Entry on “Implicit Knowledge”)
3) When discussing the concept of “sense of life”, Ayn Rand seems to speak of some part of the human mind that is not directly under one’s control. (“Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Try to reconcile her view that the “subconscious mechanism” is, in some sense, not directly under one’s control with the fact that Rand was clearly a proponent of volition and choice. (“The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically...” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged, See also entry on “Free Will” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
Answer: While Rand thought that the process of reasoning, of acquiring new knowledge, is volitional, there are other aspects of our consciousness that are not under our control (percept formation), and there are also aspects of our consciousness that are not under our direct control although the content of our thinking will affect them (emotions). “To the extent to which a man is mentally active, i.e., motivated by the desire to know, to understand, his mind works as the programmer of his emotional computer –and his sense of life develops into a bright counterpart of a rational philosophy. To the extent to which a man evades, the programming of his emotional computer is done by chance influences; by random impressions, associations, imitations, by undigested snatches of environmental bromides, by cultural osmosis.” (Pg. 26, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
4) A person who regards himself as an alcoholic will sometimes describe the urge to drink as difficult (or even impossible) to resist, such that once he has had one drink, he cannot resist drinking to excess. Ayn Rand says in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Is the difficulty alcoholics have in resisting the temptation to drink to excess after having one drink an example of such a “habitual pattern”?
Answer: I think yes. Obviously, this is more of a question for the science of psychology, and I am, by no means, an expert on this.
5) Consider this description of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder from a University of Florida web site:
Could Ayn Rand’s description in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” (that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26)) be a clue helping to explain how some people become Obsessive-Compulsives?
Answer: I think so. This appears to be more of a question for the science of psychology. But, note this paragraph from this essay: “Since an act of volition –a process of thought- is required to use that mechanism for a cognitive purpose, man can evade that effort. But if he evades, chance takes over: the mechanism functions on its own , like a machine without a driver; it goes on integrating, but integrating blindly, incongruously, at random- not as an instrument of cognition, but as an instrument of distortion, delusion and nightmare terror, bent on wrecking its defaulting processor’s consciousness.” (pg. 27, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
6) According to Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, how is a sense of life formed? What is the key concept, in the formation of a sense of life? Is this key concept in the formation of a sense of life an ethical or metaphysical term?
a) Sense of life is formed “…by a process of emotional generalization which may be described as a subconscious counterpart of a process of abstraction, since it is a method of classifying and integrating. But it is a process of emotional abstraction: it consists of classifying things according to the emotions they invoke -i.e., of tying together, by association or connotation, all those things which have the power to make an individual experience the same (or a similar) emotion.” (pg. 27, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) “The key concept, in the formation of a sense of life, is the term ”important”.”(pg. 28, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
c) “’Important’ –in its essential meaning, as distinguished from its more limited and superficial uses –is a metaphysical term.” (pg. 28, 2nd full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
7) What is a “metaphysical value judgment”?
Answer: (pg. 28, 2nd full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
8) What are some of the examples that Ayn Rand gives of the concept of “important” (as the concept is used in this essay)? Can you think of any others? What does the integrated sum of these “basic values” represent?
a) (pg. 28, bottom, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b)
c) “The integrated sum of a man’s basic values is his sense of life.”(pg. 29, top, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
9) Does a man’s “sense of life”, his “implicit sense of values” that remains in his subconscious, necessarily have to match the philosophy that he explicitly embraces? Does the possibility of a variance between a man’s conscious philosophy and his subconscious “sense of life” explain why a person who embraces the self-sacrifice of Christianity or Socialism could, in his daily life, at least for a while, be successful at living (“successful” by the terms of Ayn Rand’s philosophy –a good career, decent friends, good wife/husband, etc.)?
a) “In some cases, a man’s sense of life is better (closer to the truth) than the kind of ideas he accepts.” (pg. 30, second full para down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) Yes, this is why you could have a Christian/Marxist person who is “successful at life” (defined by Ayn Rand’s meaning of success), but I think his long-run prospects aren’t good unless he changes his expressly held beliefs. (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
10) Did Ayn Rand believe that a person’s “sense of life” is incapable of being changed? At the end of Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead”, the character of Dominique Francon has changed her mind regarding whether “the good”, as represented by people like Howard Roark, can succeed in this world. At the beginning of the novel, she is normally described as having a “malevolent universe premise” (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Fountainhead.id-111,pageNum-48.html ). At the end, Dominique rejects this premise. Rand says in this essay, that: “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand) Does this mean that, at the end of the novel, Dominique Francon would have needed to engage in a “…long process of psychological retraining…” (or was she doing this throughout the novel)?
a) No, while it is not under one’s direct control, it is possible to change it. “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) I’m not sure. I’d have to go back and read the novel now.
11) What two aspects of a man’s existence does Rand regard as the “…special province and expression of his sense of life…”? Does the concept of “love at first sight” have any legitimacy in Ayn Rand’s philosophy? A cynical person might say that “love at first sight” is really just “lust at first sight”, in other words, especially for men, love is initially based on the opposite sex’s physical appearance/anatomy; is this necessarily inconsistent with what Rand is saying here about it being “…a person’s sense of life that one falls in love –with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality.” (pg. 32, Third Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)?
a) love and art (pg. 32, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) I don’t know, but I did read in _Letter’s of Ayn Rand_, ed. By Michael S. Berliner, where she said she believed in “love at first sight”.
c) I think that sexual attraction has to do with what one regards as important. A woman is going to tend to emphasize herself and her body in different ways, based on her “implicit sense of values”, and a man who has a similar “implicit sense of values” about what is important in a woman will notice the fact that she emphasizes those features of her body in the way she dresses and behaves. For instance, physical health in a prospective sexual partner might be regarded as important by someone who wants a long-term relationship, because they want a husband/wife that they can be with for a long time, and if they appear unhealthy, then they might die sooner. (Note that at one time, a woman with greater body weight was considered more desirable because it was an indicator that she was “well fed”, and therefore healthy. Now, in modern times, when food is readily available to all, being overweight is a sign of being unhealthy.) The point is, physical appearance often says a lot about what a person finds important in themselves and in a prospective romantic partner, so I think that saying it is really “lust at first sight”, instead of “love at first sight”, is an inaccurate description of the mental process that is occurring.
12) What religious myth does Ayn Rand mention as being a sort of allegory describing the subject matter of her essay, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”? Give an example from a religion of this myth. Do you agree or disagree with her assessment (provide reasons why or why not)?
a) The religious myth she refers to is the myth of a “supernatural recorder” from whom nothing can be hidden, who lists all of man’s deeds. She says this is a primitive attempt to explain a man’s sense of life.
b) Christianity –“judgment day”, when you die and God judges your life (pg. 31, First Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
c) Interesting. I find her connection there intriguing. It means that for Rand, YOU are, in some sense, the judge of your actions, and must live, on some level of consciousness, with all of your actions.
Answer: See Ayn Rand Lexicon, entry on “Metaphysics"
2) Ayn Rand says that a “…sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man’s emotional responses and the essence of his character.” (Pg. 25, “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_, Ayn Rand) What does it mean for something to be “preconceptual”? What does it mean for something to be “subconscious” as opposed to “conscious” ( in other words, what is the “subconscious” for Rand)? What does it mean for something to be “implicit” in your mind, as opposed to “explicit”?
a) “Long before he is old enough to grasp such a concept as metaphysics, man makes choices, forms value-judgments, experiences emotions and acquires a certain implicit view of life.”
b) (See entry on “Subconscious” in Ayn Rand Lexicon) “Strictly speaking, Objectivism does not subscribe to the idea of an unconscious at all. We use the term ‘subconscious’ instead- and that is simply a name for the content of your mind that you are not focused on at any given moment. It is simply a repository for past information or conclusions that you were once conscious of in some form, but that are now stored beneath the threshold of consciousness…” (Quoting Leonard Peikoff, from Entry on “Subconscious” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
c) Implicit knowledge- Axiomatic concepts identify explicity what is merely implicit in the consciousness of an infant or an animal. (Implicit knowledge is passively held material which, to be grasped, requires a special focus and process of consciousness –a process which an infant learns to perform eventually, but which an animal’s consciousness is unable to perform.)” (See Ayn Rand Lexicon, Entry on “Implicit Knowledge”)
3) When discussing the concept of “sense of life”, Ayn Rand seems to speak of some part of the human mind that is not directly under one’s control. (“Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Try to reconcile her view that the “subconscious mechanism” is, in some sense, not directly under one’s control with the fact that Rand was clearly a proponent of volition and choice. (“The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically...” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged, See also entry on “Free Will” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
Answer: While Rand thought that the process of reasoning, of acquiring new knowledge, is volitional, there are other aspects of our consciousness that are not under our control (percept formation), and there are also aspects of our consciousness that are not under our direct control although the content of our thinking will affect them (emotions). “To the extent to which a man is mentally active, i.e., motivated by the desire to know, to understand, his mind works as the programmer of his emotional computer –and his sense of life develops into a bright counterpart of a rational philosophy. To the extent to which a man evades, the programming of his emotional computer is done by chance influences; by random impressions, associations, imitations, by undigested snatches of environmental bromides, by cultural osmosis.” (Pg. 26, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
4) A person who regards himself as an alcoholic will sometimes describe the urge to drink as difficult (or even impossible) to resist, such that once he has had one drink, he cannot resist drinking to excess. Ayn Rand says in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Is the difficulty alcoholics have in resisting the temptation to drink to excess after having one drink an example of such a “habitual pattern”?
Answer: I think yes. Obviously, this is more of a question for the science of psychology, and I am, by no means, an expert on this.
5) Consider this description of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder from a University of Florida web site:
“Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)…is characterized by recurrent and disturbing thoughts (called obsessions) and/or repetitive, ritualized behaviors that the person feels driven to perform (called compulsions). Obsessions can also take the form of intrusive images or unwanted impulses.
Common types of obsessions include concerns with contamination (e.g., fear of dirt germs, or illness), safety/harm (e.g., being responsible for a fire), unwanted acts of aggression (e.g., unwanted impulse to harm a loved one), unacceptable sexual or religious thoughts (e.g., sacrilegious images of Christ), and the need for symmetry or exactness.
Common compulsions include excessive cleaning (e.g., ritualized hand washing), checking, ordering and arranging rituals, counting, repeating routine activities (e.g., going in/out of a doorway), and hoarding (e.g., collecting useless items). While most compulsions are observable behaviors (e.g., hand washing), some are performed as unobservable mental rituals (e.g., silent recitation of nonsense words to vanquish a horrific image).” (http://www.ufocd.org/WhatIsOCD.htm )
Could Ayn Rand’s description in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” (that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26)) be a clue helping to explain how some people become Obsessive-Compulsives?
Answer: I think so. This appears to be more of a question for the science of psychology. But, note this paragraph from this essay: “Since an act of volition –a process of thought- is required to use that mechanism for a cognitive purpose, man can evade that effort. But if he evades, chance takes over: the mechanism functions on its own , like a machine without a driver; it goes on integrating, but integrating blindly, incongruously, at random- not as an instrument of cognition, but as an instrument of distortion, delusion and nightmare terror, bent on wrecking its defaulting processor’s consciousness.” (pg. 27, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
6) According to Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, how is a sense of life formed? What is the key concept, in the formation of a sense of life? Is this key concept in the formation of a sense of life an ethical or metaphysical term?
a) Sense of life is formed “…by a process of emotional generalization which may be described as a subconscious counterpart of a process of abstraction, since it is a method of classifying and integrating. But it is a process of emotional abstraction: it consists of classifying things according to the emotions they invoke -i.e., of tying together, by association or connotation, all those things which have the power to make an individual experience the same (or a similar) emotion.” (pg. 27, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) “The key concept, in the formation of a sense of life, is the term ”important”.”(pg. 28, first full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
c) “’Important’ –in its essential meaning, as distinguished from its more limited and superficial uses –is a metaphysical term.” (pg. 28, 2nd full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
7) What is a “metaphysical value judgment”?
Answer: (pg. 28, 2nd full para. down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
8) What are some of the examples that Ayn Rand gives of the concept of “important” (as the concept is used in this essay)? Can you think of any others? What does the integrated sum of these “basic values” represent?
a) (pg. 28, bottom, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b)
c) “The integrated sum of a man’s basic values is his sense of life.”(pg. 29, top, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
9) Does a man’s “sense of life”, his “implicit sense of values” that remains in his subconscious, necessarily have to match the philosophy that he explicitly embraces? Does the possibility of a variance between a man’s conscious philosophy and his subconscious “sense of life” explain why a person who embraces the self-sacrifice of Christianity or Socialism could, in his daily life, at least for a while, be successful at living (“successful” by the terms of Ayn Rand’s philosophy –a good career, decent friends, good wife/husband, etc.)?
a) “In some cases, a man’s sense of life is better (closer to the truth) than the kind of ideas he accepts.” (pg. 30, second full para down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) Yes, this is why you could have a Christian/Marxist person who is “successful at life” (defined by Ayn Rand’s meaning of success), but I think his long-run prospects aren’t good unless he changes his expressly held beliefs. (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
10) Did Ayn Rand believe that a person’s “sense of life” is incapable of being changed? At the end of Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead”, the character of Dominique Francon has changed her mind regarding whether “the good”, as represented by people like Howard Roark, can succeed in this world. At the beginning of the novel, she is normally described as having a “malevolent universe premise” (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Fountainhead.id-111,pageNum-48.html ). At the end, Dominique rejects this premise. Rand says in this essay, that: “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand) Does this mean that, at the end of the novel, Dominique Francon would have needed to engage in a “…long process of psychological retraining…” (or was she doing this throughout the novel)?
a) No, while it is not under one’s direct control, it is possible to change it. “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) I’m not sure. I’d have to go back and read the novel now.
11) What two aspects of a man’s existence does Rand regard as the “…special province and expression of his sense of life…”? Does the concept of “love at first sight” have any legitimacy in Ayn Rand’s philosophy? A cynical person might say that “love at first sight” is really just “lust at first sight”, in other words, especially for men, love is initially based on the opposite sex’s physical appearance/anatomy; is this necessarily inconsistent with what Rand is saying here about it being “…a person’s sense of life that one falls in love –with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality.” (pg. 32, Third Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)?
a) love and art (pg. 32, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
b) I don’t know, but I did read in _Letter’s of Ayn Rand_, ed. By Michael S. Berliner, where she said she believed in “love at first sight”.
c) I think that sexual attraction has to do with what one regards as important. A woman is going to tend to emphasize herself and her body in different ways, based on her “implicit sense of values”, and a man who has a similar “implicit sense of values” about what is important in a woman will notice the fact that she emphasizes those features of her body in the way she dresses and behaves. For instance, physical health in a prospective sexual partner might be regarded as important by someone who wants a long-term relationship, because they want a husband/wife that they can be with for a long time, and if they appear unhealthy, then they might die sooner. (Note that at one time, a woman with greater body weight was considered more desirable because it was an indicator that she was “well fed”, and therefore healthy. Now, in modern times, when food is readily available to all, being overweight is a sign of being unhealthy.) The point is, physical appearance often says a lot about what a person finds important in themselves and in a prospective romantic partner, so I think that saying it is really “lust at first sight”, instead of “love at first sight”, is an inaccurate description of the mental process that is occurring.
12) What religious myth does Ayn Rand mention as being a sort of allegory describing the subject matter of her essay, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”? Give an example from a religion of this myth. Do you agree or disagree with her assessment (provide reasons why or why not)?
a) The religious myth she refers to is the myth of a “supernatural recorder” from whom nothing can be hidden, who lists all of man’s deeds. She says this is a primitive attempt to explain a man’s sense of life.
b) Christianity –“judgment day”, when you die and God judges your life (pg. 31, First Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)
c) Interesting. I find her connection there intriguing. It means that for Rand, YOU are, in some sense, the judge of your actions, and must live, on some level of consciousness, with all of your actions.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Questions for Nov. 4 Meeting: “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”
Below are the questions for the next meeting (Nov. 4, 2007, 3:30pm). Please read the essay before attending, and print out a copy of these questions.
Sign up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for meeting time, date, and location.
Questions for “Philosophy and a Sense of Life” by Ayn Rand, found in The Romantic Manifesto
1) What is “metaphysics” (as used in this essay)?
2) Ayn Rand says that a “…sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man’s emotional responses and the essence of his character.” (Pg. 25, “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_, Ayn Rand) What does it mean for something to be “preconceptual”? What does it mean for something to be “subconscious” as opposed to “conscious” ( in other words, what is the “subconscious” for Rand)? What does it mean for something to be “implicit” in your mind, as opposed to “explicit”? (You may want to refer to _The Ayn Rand Lexicon_ for some of these definitions.)
3) When discussing the concept of “sense of life”, Ayn Rand seems to speak of some part of the human mind that is not directly under one’s control. (“Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Try to reconcile her view that the “subconscious mechanism” is, in some sense, not directly under one’s control with the fact that Rand was clearly a proponent of volition and choice. (“The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically...” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged, See also entry on “Free Will” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
4) A person who regards himself as an alcoholic will sometimes describe the urge to drink as difficult (or even impossible) to resist, such that once he has had one drink, he cannot resist drinking to excess. Ayn Rand says in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Is the difficulty alcoholics have in resisting the temptation to drink to excess after having one drink an example of such a “habitual pattern”?
5) Consider this description of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder from a University of Florida web site:
Could Ayn Rand’s description in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” (that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26)) be a clue helping to explain how some people become Obsessive-Compulsives?
6) According to Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, how is a sense of life formed? What is the key concept, in the formation of a sense of life? Is this key concept in the formation of a sense of life an ethical or metaphysical term?
7) What is a “metaphysical value judgment”?
8) What are some of the examples that Ayn Rand gives of the concept of “important” (as the concept is used in this essay)? Can you think of any others? What does the integrated sum of these “basic values” represent?
9) Does a man’s “sense of life”, his “implicit sense of values” that remains in his subconscious, necessarily have to match the philosophy that he explicitly embraces? Does the possibility of a variance between a man’s conscious philosophy and his subconscious “sense of life” explain why a person who embraces the self-sacrifice of Christianity or Socialism could, in his daily life, at least for a while, be successful at living (“successful” by the terms of Ayn Rand’s philosophy –a good career, decent friends, good wife/husband, etc.)?
10) Did Ayn Rand believe that a person’s “sense of life” is incapable of being changed? At the end of Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead”, the character of Dominique Francon has changed her mind regarding whether “the good”, as represented by people like Howard Roark, can succeed in this world. At the beginning of the novel, she is normally described as having a “malevolent universe premise” (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Fountainhead.id-111,pageNum-48.html ). At the end, Dominique rejects this premise. Rand says in this essay, that: “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand) Does this mean that, at the end of the novel, Dominique Francon would have needed to engage in a “…long process of psychological retraining…” (or was she doing this throughout the novel)?
11) What two aspects of a man’s existence does Rand regard as the “…special province and expression of his sense of life…”? Does the concept of “love at first sight” have any legitimacy in Ayn Rand’s philosophy? A cynical person might say that “love at first sight” is really just “lust at first sight”, in other words, especially for men, love is initially based on the opposite sex’s physical appearance/anatomy, is this necessarily inconsistent with what Rand is saying here about it being “…a person’s sense of life that one falls in love –with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality.” (pg. 32, Third Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)?
12) What religious myth does Ayn Rand mention as being a sort of allegory describing the subject matter of her essay, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”? Give an example from a religion of this myth. Do you agree or disagree with her assessment (provide reasons why or why not)?
Sign up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for meeting time, date, and location.
Questions for “Philosophy and a Sense of Life” by Ayn Rand, found in The Romantic Manifesto
1) What is “metaphysics” (as used in this essay)?
2) Ayn Rand says that a “…sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man’s emotional responses and the essence of his character.” (Pg. 25, “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_, Ayn Rand) What does it mean for something to be “preconceptual”? What does it mean for something to be “subconscious” as opposed to “conscious” ( in other words, what is the “subconscious” for Rand)? What does it mean for something to be “implicit” in your mind, as opposed to “explicit”? (You may want to refer to _The Ayn Rand Lexicon_ for some of these definitions.)
3) When discussing the concept of “sense of life”, Ayn Rand seems to speak of some part of the human mind that is not directly under one’s control. (“Whatever the case may be, his subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Try to reconcile her view that the “subconscious mechanism” is, in some sense, not directly under one’s control with the fact that Rand was clearly a proponent of volition and choice. (“The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically...” (Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged, See also entry on “Free Will” in Ayn Rand Lexicon)
4) A person who regards himself as an alcoholic will sometimes describe the urge to drink as difficult (or even impossible) to resist, such that once he has had one drink, he cannot resist drinking to excess. Ayn Rand says in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand [emphasis added]) Is the difficulty alcoholics have in resisting the temptation to drink to excess after having one drink an example of such a “habitual pattern”?
5) Consider this description of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder from a University of Florida web site:
“Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)…is characterized by recurrent and disturbing thoughts (called obsessions) and/or repetitive, ritualized behaviors that the person feels driven to perform (called compulsions). Obsessions can also take the form of intrusive images or unwanted impulses.
Common types of obsessions include concerns with contamination (e.g., fear of dirt germs, or illness), safety/harm (e.g., being responsible for a fire), unwanted acts of aggression (e.g., unwanted impulse to harm a loved one), unacceptable sexual or religious thoughts (e.g., sacrilegious images of Christ), and the need for symmetry or exactness.
Common compulsions include excessive cleaning (e.g., ritualized hand washing), checking, ordering and arranging rituals, counting, repeating routine activities (e.g., going in/out of a doorway), and hoarding (e.g., collecting useless items). While most compulsions are observable behaviors (e.g., hand washing), some are performed as unobservable mental rituals (e.g., silent recitation of nonsense words to vanquish a horrific image).” (http://www.ufocd.org/WhatIsOCD.htm )
Could Ayn Rand’s description in “Philosophy and Sense of Life” (that one’s “…subconscious mechanism sums up his psychological activities, integrating his conclusions, reactions or evasions into an emotional sum that establishes a habitual pattern and becomes his automatic response to the world around him.”(Pg. 26)) be a clue helping to explain how some people become Obsessive-Compulsives?
6) According to Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and a Sense of Life”, how is a sense of life formed? What is the key concept, in the formation of a sense of life? Is this key concept in the formation of a sense of life an ethical or metaphysical term?
7) What is a “metaphysical value judgment”?
8) What are some of the examples that Ayn Rand gives of the concept of “important” (as the concept is used in this essay)? Can you think of any others? What does the integrated sum of these “basic values” represent?
9) Does a man’s “sense of life”, his “implicit sense of values” that remains in his subconscious, necessarily have to match the philosophy that he explicitly embraces? Does the possibility of a variance between a man’s conscious philosophy and his subconscious “sense of life” explain why a person who embraces the self-sacrifice of Christianity or Socialism could, in his daily life, at least for a while, be successful at living (“successful” by the terms of Ayn Rand’s philosophy –a good career, decent friends, good wife/husband, etc.)?
10) Did Ayn Rand believe that a person’s “sense of life” is incapable of being changed? At the end of Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead”, the character of Dominique Francon has changed her mind regarding whether “the good”, as represented by people like Howard Roark, can succeed in this world. At the beginning of the novel, she is normally described as having a “malevolent universe premise” (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/The-Fountainhead.id-111,pageNum-48.html ). At the end, Dominique rejects this premise. Rand says in this essay, that: “Since it is an emotional sum, it [sense of life] cannot be changed by a direct act of will. It changes automatically, but only after a long process of psychological retraining, when and if a man changes his conscious philosophical premises.” (pg. 31, Second Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand) Does this mean that, at the end of the novel, Dominique Francon would have needed to engage in a “…long process of psychological retraining…” (or was she doing this throughout the novel)?
11) What two aspects of a man’s existence does Rand regard as the “…special province and expression of his sense of life…”? Does the concept of “love at first sight” have any legitimacy in Ayn Rand’s philosophy? A cynical person might say that “love at first sight” is really just “lust at first sight”, in other words, especially for men, love is initially based on the opposite sex’s physical appearance/anatomy, is this necessarily inconsistent with what Rand is saying here about it being “…a person’s sense of life that one falls in love –with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality.” (pg. 32, Third Full Para Down, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”, _The Romantic Manifesto_ by Ayn Rand)?
12) What religious myth does Ayn Rand mention as being a sort of allegory describing the subject matter of her essay, “Philosophy and Sense of Life”? Give an example from a religion of this myth. Do you agree or disagree with her assessment (provide reasons why or why not)?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Next Meeting: "About a Woman President"
When: (Meeting date has been changed from October 7 to October 21, 2007.)
Where: (Please sign up with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for time and location details.)
What?: Discussion of essay: "About a Woman President" by Ayn Rand (found in The Voice of Reason
Questions (Please print out):
1) What is the theme of this essay?
2) What is “Objectivism”? “What is “philosophy”? Can this essay be considered “Objectivism” or a “philosophical essay”?
3) What is “psychology”? How is it different from “philosophy”?
4) Ayn Rand says that to understand her position on this issue, one should “…study the basic motivation of the heroines in my novels, particularly Dagny Taggart.”(pg. 267) What was the basic motivation of Dagny Taggart and the other major female characters in her novels (Dominique Francon and Kira Argounova)?
5) Ayn Rand said in the same essay that she *did* think that a woman could rationally want to have any other job available (including Congresswomen, Judges, and CEO’s). What is it about the job of the President that she thought (rightly or wrongly) was so different?
6) Is Ayn Rand’s view regarding why a rational woman wouldn’t want to be president based on the fact that most of a woman's subordinates in the executive branch of government are men? Would it make any difference, if, for some reason, that the majority of her subordinates in the executive branch were also women?
7) How did Ayn Rand define “masculinity” ? (“…the object of her [a woman’s] worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.” Pg. 268, 2nd full para. down) How did Ayn Rand define “feminine”? (pg. 268, 3rd full para. down) Is the following assumption by the author of these questions incorrect?: There is no difference between a male and a female mind. The only differences between men and women are in terms of their physical traits, specifically, their genital/reproductive organs, and the hormones that those different organs produce. These hormones (testosterone and estrogen?) create other physical differences between men and women, but there is no such thing as a “female mind” or a “male mind”, there is only a “human mind”, which operates within the physical parameters of its body, which is either male or female. If this assumption by the author of these questions is correct, then what is “femininity” and “masculinity”, other than our different sexual/reproductive organs?
8) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of a “matriarch”? (pg. 269, first full para. down) Was Queen Elizabeth I a historical example of this? (You might want to do some Internet research in answering this question. http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/elizabeth/section5.rhtml)
9) What does this essay say, if anything, about the desire of Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States in 2008?
10) Ayn Rand also liked stamp collecting (http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_stamp.html). Does this mean you must like stamp collecting to be an Objectivist? In the same book that you can find the article “About a Woman President” (The Voice of Reason), there is another article advocating “Tax Credits for Education”. Is advocating tax credits for education, strictly speaking, “Objectivism”, such that one must agree with it to consider oneself an “Objectivist”? It is this author’s understanding that Miss Rand also opposed the death penalty. Does this mean an Objectivist must oppose the death penalty?
11) If you think that Ayn Rand was simply mistaken in this case, does this say anything about her stature as a historical figure in the history of philosophy? (To help you think about this question consider some other, somewhat similar questions: Does the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves make him any less great as a proponent of the rights of man and for the liberties that everyone, of every race, has today? Does the fact that Isaac Newton believed he could transmute lead into gold [alchemy] make him any less important or great of a figure in the history of physics? )
Where: (Please sign up with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for time and location details.)
What?: Discussion of essay: "About a Woman President" by Ayn Rand (found in The Voice of Reason
Questions (Please print out):
1) What is the theme of this essay?
2) What is “Objectivism”? “What is “philosophy”? Can this essay be considered “Objectivism” or a “philosophical essay”?
3) What is “psychology”? How is it different from “philosophy”?
4) Ayn Rand says that to understand her position on this issue, one should “…study the basic motivation of the heroines in my novels, particularly Dagny Taggart.”(pg. 267) What was the basic motivation of Dagny Taggart and the other major female characters in her novels (Dominique Francon and Kira Argounova)?
5) Ayn Rand said in the same essay that she *did* think that a woman could rationally want to have any other job available (including Congresswomen, Judges, and CEO’s). What is it about the job of the President that she thought (rightly or wrongly) was so different?
6) Is Ayn Rand’s view regarding why a rational woman wouldn’t want to be president based on the fact that most of a woman's subordinates in the executive branch of government are men? Would it make any difference, if, for some reason, that the majority of her subordinates in the executive branch were also women?
7) How did Ayn Rand define “masculinity” ? (“…the object of her [a woman’s] worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.” Pg. 268, 2nd full para. down) How did Ayn Rand define “feminine”? (pg. 268, 3rd full para. down) Is the following assumption by the author of these questions incorrect?: There is no difference between a male and a female mind. The only differences between men and women are in terms of their physical traits, specifically, their genital/reproductive organs, and the hormones that those different organs produce. These hormones (testosterone and estrogen?) create other physical differences between men and women, but there is no such thing as a “female mind” or a “male mind”, there is only a “human mind”, which operates within the physical parameters of its body, which is either male or female. If this assumption by the author of these questions is correct, then what is “femininity” and “masculinity”, other than our different sexual/reproductive organs?
8) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of a “matriarch”? (pg. 269, first full para. down) Was Queen Elizabeth I a historical example of this? (You might want to do some Internet research in answering this question. http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/elizabeth/section5.rhtml)
9) What does this essay say, if anything, about the desire of Hillary Clinton to be the President of the United States in 2008?
10) Ayn Rand also liked stamp collecting (http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_stamp.html). Does this mean you must like stamp collecting to be an Objectivist? In the same book that you can find the article “About a Woman President” (The Voice of Reason), there is another article advocating “Tax Credits for Education”. Is advocating tax credits for education, strictly speaking, “Objectivism”, such that one must agree with it to consider oneself an “Objectivist”? It is this author’s understanding that Miss Rand also opposed the death penalty. Does this mean an Objectivist must oppose the death penalty?
11) If you think that Ayn Rand was simply mistaken in this case, does this say anything about her stature as a historical figure in the history of philosophy? (To help you think about this question consider some other, somewhat similar questions: Does the fact that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves make him any less great as a proponent of the rights of man and for the liberties that everyone, of every race, has today? Does the fact that Isaac Newton believed he could transmute lead into gold [alchemy] make him any less important or great of a figure in the history of physics? )
Monday, September 24, 2007
Proposed Answers for “How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”
Here are the answers I came up with for the questions I posed for "How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society" (from The Virtue of Selfishness)
1) What is the theme of the essay “How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”?
Answer: What principles of action are necessary for a man of reason to live in a society that Rand regarded as so opposed to reason?
2) “How does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?” was written in 1962. Was American society really as irrational as Ayn Rand seems to think it was at this time? (Point to historical facts that would tend to prove or refute her belief.) Even if American society in 1962 could have been described as “irrational”, is this still true of American society today? (Point to facts that tend to prove your position on this.) Was Ayn Rand speaking of American society in particular, or did she mean world society as a whole, in 1962?
Answer: [group discussion]
3) What one principle, that is described in “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” as “…the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today…”, does Rand regard as most important to live a rational life in an irrational society?
a) “One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.” (pg. 71, Sig. Ed. First Para, H.D.O.L.A.R.L.I.S.)
4) What does “pronouncing moral judgment” consist of (focus on what it means to “pronounce” something)? Does this mean that you must tell every person you see on the street, wearing a Christian cross (or a Jewish star, or a Muslim crescent moon, or displaying a statue of the Buda), that they are helping to perpetuate 2000+ years of irrationality and human misery? Does this mean that you must approach your Socialist (or Christian) boss, and, completely unsolicited, and without provocation, tell him or her what you think of the philosophy of Socialism (or Christianity)? Does this mean that a student at college must raise his hand to disagree with every ridiculous thing his left-wing feminist/environmentalist/multiculturalist professor says? Does this mean that you must tell a mugger holding you at gun point, and asking for your money, that he is initiating physical force against you and therefore morally evil? Do you have to debate every Mormon/Jehova’s Witness that comes to your door for hours, in an effort to convince him that he is wrong? How does one determine when it is appropriate to tell someone, morally, “what you think of them”, and how much is it appropriate to say?
Answer: Pg. 73, top, “The policy of pronouncing moral judgment…means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.” (pg. 73, top, Italics mine)
5) In her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” Ayn Rand describes Rationality as “…man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues…” (pg. 25, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”); she also says that the Objectivist ethics holds “…man’s life as the standard of value –and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man…” (Id.) For Ayn Rand, “virtue” is the act by which one gains/keeps the values necessary for maintaining one’s own life. How would one’s “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…” (as recommended in “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life? What virtue is involved with “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…”?
a) Never failing to pronounce moral judgment would tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life by encouraging people who behave in a way that enhances or promotes man’s life, and discouraging people who behave in way that inhibits or damages man’s life.
b) The virtue involved is the virtue of justice.
6) What is “moral agnosticism” for Ayn Rand?
7) Ayn Rand says that “To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil.” (pg. 71, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”) Does this mean that one can only engage in judgment of others if one has never engaged in a moral breach? What is the “court of appeal from one’s judgments”? Why would this be considered to be the final court of appeal according to Ayn Rand’s view of consciousness and how it relates to reality? What does a man reveal when he pronounces judgment on others?
a) I tend to think Ayn Rand simply means one must have a present commitment to morality, not that one can never have committed any moral breaches in the past, in order to judge others.
b) The “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand is “objective reality”. (pg. 71, bottom.)
c) Reality would be considered the “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand because her view is the “primacy of existence” view. This means that reality is what it is, regardless of human wishes or desires to the contrary. This means that, ultimately, one must conform one’s mind to reality, which means that if one’s judgment is mistaken, it is because the facts of reality are other than one believes them to be, which means that since reality cannot change, one must change one’s mind.
d) Since judgment of others is based on a reference to some abstract standard, when one judges others, one reveals “…his own moral character and standards…” (pg. 72, top)
8) Why does the fact that men must make choices mean that there is “…no escape from moral values…” (pg. 72, Second Full Para Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”)? What is the proper moral principle to adopt on the issue of other men’s choices? Is the issue of “judgment” wider than judging other men’s character?
a) Since human beings must make choices, it means that their choices will not automatically conform to reality and the requirements of man’s life. Furthermore, since certain actions will tend to promote their life over others, this means that they must have certain principles of action that will help them to act in conformance with the things that will promote their lives.
b) “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
9) What does “to judge” mean for Ayn Rand? Describe a situation requiring “judgment” (not necessarily judgment of another human being’s character), and explain exactly how it represents an example of “judgment”.
a) “To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” (pg. 72, last para.)
b) Example of Judgment: You are buying a house. You look at several houses, and must pick one to make an offer on. You must make a judgment about which house is best for you. To decide which house is best for you, you must think about things like: How many people will live there? (Just you? Do you have a wife? Do you have children, and how many? How old are your children?) What colors do you like? What colors don’t you like? If you have children, are the good schools in the area? Is the asking price for the houses you are looking at similar to the prices of other houses in the area? Is the house you are looking at in good repair and upkeep? (Will it need a lot of work to fix it up?) Will you have to make “trade-offs” between different possible houses? (For instance, maybe the first house you look at is in a neighborhood with a closer school for your children, but the second house you look at has an extra bedroom so that all of the kids can have their own room.) This represents judgment because you are looking at different possible houses, and then deciding based on a standard (or standards), which one is best for you, given the ultimate standard, which is the context of your own life. (This example inspired by the TV show House Hunters.)
10) Ayn Rand says that “When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer ‘Why?’ and to prove one’s case –to oneself and to any rational inquirer.” (pg. 72, Last Full Paragraph, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Imagine the type of personality who can be described as “the perpetual debater”, which I encounter from time to time. Basically, this person will debate an issue with you, seemingly, forever (why they do this is probably a complicated issue for the science of psychology). Eventually, you get so “worn down” that you simply do not want to discuss the issue any further with them, usually because of time constraints. Does the fact that you tell someone, “I don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to discuss this issue at length with you.”, especially someone that you know tends to be a “perpetual debater” mentality, mean that you are not being true to Miss. Rand’s recommendation that you be prepared to prove your case?
Answer: No, because you know that the “perpetual debater” is not behaving in a fully rational manner.
11) What is an “error of knowledge”? How is it different from “human evil”? (pg. 73, Third Paragraph Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Give an example of an “error of knowledge”, and explain why it is morally blameless.
1) What is the theme of the essay “How does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”?
Answer: What principles of action are necessary for a man of reason to live in a society that Rand regarded as so opposed to reason?
2) “How does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?” was written in 1962. Was American society really as irrational as Ayn Rand seems to think it was at this time? (Point to historical facts that would tend to prove or refute her belief.) Even if American society in 1962 could have been described as “irrational”, is this still true of American society today? (Point to facts that tend to prove your position on this.) Was Ayn Rand speaking of American society in particular, or did she mean world society as a whole, in 1962?
Answer: [group discussion]
3) What one principle, that is described in “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” as “…the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent today…”, does Rand regard as most important to live a rational life in an irrational society?
a) “One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.” (pg. 71, Sig. Ed. First Para, H.D.O.L.A.R.L.I.S.)
4) What does “pronouncing moral judgment” consist of (focus on what it means to “pronounce” something)? Does this mean that you must tell every person you see on the street, wearing a Christian cross (or a Jewish star, or a Muslim crescent moon, or displaying a statue of the Buda), that they are helping to perpetuate 2000+ years of irrationality and human misery? Does this mean that you must approach your Socialist (or Christian) boss, and, completely unsolicited, and without provocation, tell him or her what you think of the philosophy of Socialism (or Christianity)? Does this mean that a student at college must raise his hand to disagree with every ridiculous thing his left-wing feminist/environmentalist/multiculturalist professor says? Does this mean that you must tell a mugger holding you at gun point, and asking for your money, that he is initiating physical force against you and therefore morally evil? Do you have to debate every Mormon/Jehova’s Witness that comes to your door for hours, in an effort to convince him that he is wrong? How does one determine when it is appropriate to tell someone, morally, “what you think of them”, and how much is it appropriate to say?
Answer: Pg. 73, top, “The policy of pronouncing moral judgment…means: (a) that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s moral evaluation of every person, issue, and event with which one deals, and act accordingly; (b) that one must make one’s moral evaluation known to others, when it is rationally appropriate to do so.” (pg. 73, top, Italics mine)
5) In her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” Ayn Rand describes Rationality as “…man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues…” (pg. 25, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”); she also says that the Objectivist ethics holds “…man’s life as the standard of value –and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man…” (Id.) For Ayn Rand, “virtue” is the act by which one gains/keeps the values necessary for maintaining one’s own life. How would one’s “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…” (as recommended in “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life? What virtue is involved with “…never failing to pronounce moral judgment…”?
a) Never failing to pronounce moral judgment would tend to promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own life by encouraging people who behave in a way that enhances or promotes man’s life, and discouraging people who behave in way that inhibits or damages man’s life.
b) The virtue involved is the virtue of justice.
6) What is “moral agnosticism” for Ayn Rand?
7) Ayn Rand says that “To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil.” (pg. 71, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness, “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”) Does this mean that one can only engage in judgment of others if one has never engaged in a moral breach? What is the “court of appeal from one’s judgments”? Why would this be considered to be the final court of appeal according to Ayn Rand’s view of consciousness and how it relates to reality? What does a man reveal when he pronounces judgment on others?
a) I tend to think Ayn Rand simply means one must have a present commitment to morality, not that one can never have committed any moral breaches in the past, in order to judge others.
b) The “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand is “objective reality”. (pg. 71, bottom.)
c) Reality would be considered the “court of appeal” for Ayn Rand because her view is the “primacy of existence” view. This means that reality is what it is, regardless of human wishes or desires to the contrary. This means that, ultimately, one must conform one’s mind to reality, which means that if one’s judgment is mistaken, it is because the facts of reality are other than one believes them to be, which means that since reality cannot change, one must change one’s mind.
d) Since judgment of others is based on a reference to some abstract standard, when one judges others, one reveals “…his own moral character and standards…” (pg. 72, top)
8) Why does the fact that men must make choices mean that there is “…no escape from moral values…” (pg. 72, Second Full Para Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”)? What is the proper moral principle to adopt on the issue of other men’s choices? Is the issue of “judgment” wider than judging other men’s character?
a) Since human beings must make choices, it means that their choices will not automatically conform to reality and the requirements of man’s life. Furthermore, since certain actions will tend to promote their life over others, this means that they must have certain principles of action that will help them to act in conformance with the things that will promote their lives.
b) “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
9) What does “to judge” mean for Ayn Rand? Describe a situation requiring “judgment” (not necessarily judgment of another human being’s character), and explain exactly how it represents an example of “judgment”.
a) “To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” (pg. 72, last para.)
b) Example of Judgment: You are buying a house. You look at several houses, and must pick one to make an offer on. You must make a judgment about which house is best for you. To decide which house is best for you, you must think about things like: How many people will live there? (Just you? Do you have a wife? Do you have children, and how many? How old are your children?) What colors do you like? What colors don’t you like? If you have children, are the good schools in the area? Is the asking price for the houses you are looking at similar to the prices of other houses in the area? Is the house you are looking at in good repair and upkeep? (Will it need a lot of work to fix it up?) Will you have to make “trade-offs” between different possible houses? (For instance, maybe the first house you look at is in a neighborhood with a closer school for your children, but the second house you look at has an extra bedroom so that all of the kids can have their own room.) This represents judgment because you are looking at different possible houses, and then deciding based on a standard (or standards), which one is best for you, given the ultimate standard, which is the context of your own life. (This example inspired by the TV show House Hunters.)
10) Ayn Rand says that “When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer ‘Why?’ and to prove one’s case –to oneself and to any rational inquirer.” (pg. 72, Last Full Paragraph, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Imagine the type of personality who can be described as “the perpetual debater”, which I encounter from time to time. Basically, this person will debate an issue with you, seemingly, forever (why they do this is probably a complicated issue for the science of psychology). Eventually, you get so “worn down” that you simply do not want to discuss the issue any further with them, usually because of time constraints. Does the fact that you tell someone, “I don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to discuss this issue at length with you.”, especially someone that you know tends to be a “perpetual debater” mentality, mean that you are not being true to Miss. Rand’s recommendation that you be prepared to prove your case?
Answer: No, because you know that the “perpetual debater” is not behaving in a fully rational manner.
11) What is an “error of knowledge”? How is it different from “human evil”? (pg. 73, Third Paragraph Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Give an example of an “error of knowledge”, and explain why it is morally blameless.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Next Meeting Topic: September 23, 2007
What: Meeting to Discuss "How Does One Lead a Rational
Life in an Irrational Society?" by Ayn Rand in The virtue of selfishness
Where/When: Sunday, September 23. (Sign up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for time and location details, or e-mail Dean Cook.)
Event Description: This Essay can be found in _The
Virtue of Selfishness_ by Ayn Rand. If you haven't
already done so, I also recommend reading "The
Objectivist Ethics" in that same book before reading
"How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational
Society?" Attendance is open to prety much anyone, so
long as they agree to my moderation, and agree not to
deviate too far from the questions I have posed here.
Questions:
(Please print out the following questions)
1) What is the theme of the essay “How does One Lead a
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”?
2) “How does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational
Society?” was written in 1962. Was American society
really as irrational as Ayn Rand seems to think it was
at this time? (Point to historical facts that would
tend to prove or refute her belief.) Even if American
society in 1962 could have been described as
“irrational”, is this still true of American society
today? (Point to facts that tend to prove your
position on this.) Was Ayn Rand speaking of American
society in particular, or did she mean world society
as a whole, in 1962?
3) What one principle, that is described in “How Does
One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” as
“…the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent
today…”, does Rand regard as most important to live a
rational life in an irrational society?
4) What does “pronouncing moral judgment” consist of
(focus on what it means to “pronounce” something)?
Does this mean that you must tell every person you see
on the street, wearing a Christian cross (or a Jewish
star, or a Muslim crescent moon, or displaying a
statue of the Buda), that they are helping to
perpetuate 2000+ years of irrationality and human
misery? Does this mean that you must approach your
Socialist (or Christian) boss, and, completely
unsolicited, and without provocation, tell him or her
what you think of the philosophy of Socialism (or
Christianity)? Does this mean that a student at
college must raise his hand to disagree with every
ridiculous thing his left-wing
feminist/environmentalist/multiculturalist professor
says? Does this mean that you must tell a mugger
holding you at gun point, and asking for your money,
that he is initiating physical force against you and
therefore morally evil? Do you have to debate every
Mormon/Jehova’s Witness that comes to your door for
hours, in an effort to convince him that he is wrong?
How does one determine when it is appropriate to tell
someone, morally, “what you think of them”, and how
much is it appropriate to say?
5) In her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” Ayn Rand
describes Rationality as “…man’s basic virtue, the
source of all his other virtues…” (pg. 25, Sig Ed. The
Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”); she
also says that the Objectivist ethics holds “…man’s
life as the standard of value –and his own life as the
ethical purpose of every individual man…” (Id.) For
Ayn Rand, “virtue” is the act by which one gains/keeps
the values necessary for maintaining one’s own life.
How would one’s “…never failing to pronounce moral
judgment…” (as recommended in “How Does One Lead A
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) tend to
promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own
life? What virtue is involved with “…never failing to
pronounce moral judgment…”?
6) What is “moral agnosticism” for Ayn Rand?
7) Ayn Rand says that “To be a judge, one must possess
an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient
or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of
knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is,
the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful
evil.” (pg. 71, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness,
“How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational
Society”) Does this mean that one can only engage in
judgment of others if one has never engaged in a moral
breach? What is the “court of appeal from one’s
judgments”? Why would this be considered to be the
final court of appeal according to Ayn Rand’s view of
consciousness and how it relates to reality? What
does a man reveal when he pronounces judgment on
others?
8) Why does the fact that men must make choices mean
that there is “…no escape from moral values…” (pg. 72,
Second Full Para Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One
Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”)? What
is the proper moral principle to adopt on the issue of
other men’s choices? Is the issue of “judgment” wider
than judging other men’s character?
9) What does “to judge” mean for Ayn Rand? Describe a
situation requiring “judgment” (not necessarily
judgment of another human being’s character), and
explain exactly how it represents an example of
“judgment”.
10) Ayn Rand says that “When one pronounces moral
judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be
prepared to answer ‘Why?’ and to prove one’s case –to
oneself and to any rational inquirer.” (pg. 72, Last
Full Paragraph, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Imagine the
type of personality who can be described as “the
perpetual debater”, which I encounter from time to
time. Basically, this person will debate an issue
with you, seemingly, forever (why they do this is
probably a complicated issue for the science of
psychology). Eventually, you get so “worn down” that
you simply do not want to discuss the issue any
further with them, usually because of time
constraints. Does the fact that you tell someone, “I
don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to discuss this
issue at length with you.”, especially someone that
you know tends to be a “perpetual debater” mentality,
mean that you are not being true to Miss. Rand’s
recommendation that you be prepared to prove your
case?
11) What is an “error of knowledge”? How is it
different from “human evil”? (pg. 73, Third Paragraph
Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life
in an Irrational Society?”) Give an example of an
“error of knowledge”, and explain why it is morally
blameless.
Life in an Irrational Society?" by Ayn Rand in The virtue of selfishness
Where/When: Sunday, September 23. (Sign up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for time and location details, or e-mail Dean Cook.)
Event Description: This Essay can be found in _The
Virtue of Selfishness_ by Ayn Rand. If you haven't
already done so, I also recommend reading "The
Objectivist Ethics" in that same book before reading
"How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational
Society?" Attendance is open to prety much anyone, so
long as they agree to my moderation, and agree not to
deviate too far from the questions I have posed here.
Questions:
(Please print out the following questions)
1) What is the theme of the essay “How does One Lead a
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”?
2) “How does One Live a Rational Life in an Irrational
Society?” was written in 1962. Was American society
really as irrational as Ayn Rand seems to think it was
at this time? (Point to historical facts that would
tend to prove or refute her belief.) Even if American
society in 1962 could have been described as
“irrational”, is this still true of American society
today? (Point to facts that tend to prove your
position on this.) Was Ayn Rand speaking of American
society in particular, or did she mean world society
as a whole, in 1962?
3) What one principle, that is described in “How Does
One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society” as
“…the opposite of the idea which is so prevalent
today…”, does Rand regard as most important to live a
rational life in an irrational society?
4) What does “pronouncing moral judgment” consist of
(focus on what it means to “pronounce” something)?
Does this mean that you must tell every person you see
on the street, wearing a Christian cross (or a Jewish
star, or a Muslim crescent moon, or displaying a
statue of the Buda), that they are helping to
perpetuate 2000+ years of irrationality and human
misery? Does this mean that you must approach your
Socialist (or Christian) boss, and, completely
unsolicited, and without provocation, tell him or her
what you think of the philosophy of Socialism (or
Christianity)? Does this mean that a student at
college must raise his hand to disagree with every
ridiculous thing his left-wing
feminist/environmentalist/multiculturalist professor
says? Does this mean that you must tell a mugger
holding you at gun point, and asking for your money,
that he is initiating physical force against you and
therefore morally evil? Do you have to debate every
Mormon/Jehova’s Witness that comes to your door for
hours, in an effort to convince him that he is wrong?
How does one determine when it is appropriate to tell
someone, morally, “what you think of them”, and how
much is it appropriate to say?
5) In her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” Ayn Rand
describes Rationality as “…man’s basic virtue, the
source of all his other virtues…” (pg. 25, Sig Ed. The
Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”); she
also says that the Objectivist ethics holds “…man’s
life as the standard of value –and his own life as the
ethical purpose of every individual man…” (Id.) For
Ayn Rand, “virtue” is the act by which one gains/keeps
the values necessary for maintaining one’s own life.
How would one’s “…never failing to pronounce moral
judgment…” (as recommended in “How Does One Lead A
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) tend to
promote the ethical purpose of maintaining one’s own
life? What virtue is involved with “…never failing to
pronounce moral judgment…”?
6) What is “moral agnosticism” for Ayn Rand?
7) Ayn Rand says that “To be a judge, one must possess
an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient
or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of
knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is,
the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful
evil.” (pg. 71, Sig Ed. The Virtue of Selfishness,
“How Does One Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational
Society”) Does this mean that one can only engage in
judgment of others if one has never engaged in a moral
breach? What is the “court of appeal from one’s
judgments”? Why would this be considered to be the
final court of appeal according to Ayn Rand’s view of
consciousness and how it relates to reality? What
does a man reveal when he pronounces judgment on
others?
8) Why does the fact that men must make choices mean
that there is “…no escape from moral values…” (pg. 72,
Second Full Para Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One
Lead A Rational Life in an Irrational Society”)? What
is the proper moral principle to adopt on the issue of
other men’s choices? Is the issue of “judgment” wider
than judging other men’s character?
9) What does “to judge” mean for Ayn Rand? Describe a
situation requiring “judgment” (not necessarily
judgment of another human being’s character), and
explain exactly how it represents an example of
“judgment”.
10) Ayn Rand says that “When one pronounces moral
judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be
prepared to answer ‘Why?’ and to prove one’s case –to
oneself and to any rational inquirer.” (pg. 72, Last
Full Paragraph, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A
Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”) Imagine the
type of personality who can be described as “the
perpetual debater”, which I encounter from time to
time. Basically, this person will debate an issue
with you, seemingly, forever (why they do this is
probably a complicated issue for the science of
psychology). Eventually, you get so “worn down” that
you simply do not want to discuss the issue any
further with them, usually because of time
constraints. Does the fact that you tell someone, “I
don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to discuss this
issue at length with you.”, especially someone that
you know tends to be a “perpetual debater” mentality,
mean that you are not being true to Miss. Rand’s
recommendation that you be prepared to prove your
case?
11) What is an “error of knowledge”? How is it
different from “human evil”? (pg. 73, Third Paragraph
Down, VOS, Sig. Ed. “How Does One Lead A Rational Life
in an Irrational Society?”) Give an example of an
“error of knowledge”, and explain why it is morally
blameless.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some Possible Answers for Previous Questions
Here are some possible answers for the previous questions posted on "The Ethics of Emergencies"
1) What is the theme of this essay? (“Theme” being defined as what an author wants to say about the particular subject he has chosen to write about.)
Answer: For those who have already accepted that man is not a sacrificial animal, and that help to others is not a moral duty, what are the principles by which one identifies and evaluates the instances involving a man’s nonsacrificial help to others. (Sig. Ed., pg. 44, 2nd full para down.) In other words, is helping others always inconsistent with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and if not, when is it okay to help others?
2) What is an “emergency”?
3) What does Ayn Rand mean by the “hierarchy of values”? (You may need to look at an outside source, such as “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” –see entry on “Teleological Measurement”- for this answer.)
4) What is a “sacrifice” according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy? Give a made-up example of what, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, would be regarded as a “sacrifice”. What does Ayn Rand regard as the “rational principle of conduct” regarding one’s hierarchy of values?
a) “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non-value. (pg. 44, 3rd full para. Down)
b) A man has to choose between saving his drowning wife and saving a drowning stray dog, and chooses to save the dog.
c) “…always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.” (pg. 44, 3rd full para. Down)
5) What is “love”, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy? What are some of the different types of love, and why are they all still considered to be love?
a) “…love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.” (pg. 44, 2nd full para from the top.)
b)
6) In discussing the issue of helping others with critics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I often find that they will claim that any sort of regard or liking of other people is forbidden by her philosophy. They will claim that ascribing to Ayn Rand’s philosophy means that one must renounce any desire to be around other people. In the realm of economics, this view is easily refuted, since the division of labor, based on the principle of trade, clearly makes business associations with others in one’s self interest. (Imagine trying to produce all of the material products that you enjoy on your own without the benefit of trade with other human beings.) However, in the realm of love, the benefits of one’s friends and lovers are often less tangible. Describe some of the benefits associated with friendship and love.
7) In “The Ethics of Emergencies”, Ayn Rand describes a husband who spends a fortune to save his sick wife, and explains that this is not a sacrifice, and therefore is in his self-interest. She presents a counter-example to show why this is in fact not a sacrifice by the husband. Describe that counter-example.
Answer: “But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him –as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice.” (pg. 45, Second Full Para Down)
8) What does Ayn Rand say is the “…proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person…”? Describe how Ayn Rand answers the question of whether one should save a drowning person based on this method.
a) “…by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.” (pg. 45, Second Full Para From Bottom)
b) “If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself.”(Pg. 45, First full para from bottom.)
9) Ayn Rand says that deciding whether to save a drowning person (or a person in a fire, or other emergency) depends on how much of a value the drowning person is, and that the greater the value, the greater the risk one should be willing to take. (See pg. 45 of Signet Ed., Second Full Para From Bottom) Define what “risk” means in this context.
Answer: Risk is probably defined in this situation as something like "the chance that your life will be harmed".
10) At the beginning of the essay, Ayn Rand describes four of the psychological/intellectual consequences of one who accepts the morality of altruism. The third is described as “A nightmare view of existence –since he [the altruist] believes that men are trapped in a ‘malevolent universe’ where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.” Later in the essay, she then discusses the issue of whether one should save a drowning person (pg. 45, Signet Ed., First Full Para From bottom), and says: “If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself.” She seems to think that at least two factors should be taken into consideration in deciding what to do in this situation: First, what is the value of the person to you, and, second what is the risk of you dying in the rescue attempt? How would a “malevolent universe premise” affect this calculation?
Answer: A person who believes that the universe is “out to get them” will tend to think that any action they take is going to end in failure, and will therefore perceive the risk as great. A man who does not ascribe to the altruist ethics will tend to hold the opposite viewpoint, and therefore, will view the risk of saving a drowning person in a more realistic perspective, and will therefore be more likely to take action despite the relatively low value of the drowning person to him.
11) Ayn Rand says that “The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not ‘selflessness’ or ‘sacrifice’, but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.” Consider two examples of a person who acts in an emergency to defend his values: (1) A mother who runs into a burning building to save her children, despite the great risk to herself. (2) A man who enlists in the Army to fight in a war necessary to defend his country’s freedom, despite the possibility of being killed in combat. In both of these situations, commentators in our popular culture would tend to describe these people as “brave” or “courageous”, rather than as having “integrity”. Is it possible to reconcile the description Ayn Rand gives of these people (having integrity) with the description that our popular culture would give (having courage)?
Answer: I suspect Ayn Rand probably thought that courage is a form of integrity.
12) What attitude does Ayn Rand think one should have towards strangers, given the subject of this essay? Why does she think this is the proper attitude? What does Ayn Rand mean by “species solidarity”? In judging others, what is the initial premise one should act from when meeting a stranger?
a) “The generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of potential value he represents –until and unless he forfeits it.” (pg. 46, last full para)
b) “A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and, as such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter), that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him.” (pg. 46, bottom)
c) (pg. 47, first full para from top)
d) All men are innocent until proven guilty. (pg. 47, Second full para down)
13) What does Ayn Rand mean by “metaphysically normal” conditions, as opposed to an “emergency situation”? What is the goal in an emergency situation?
a) “By ‘normal’ conditions, I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire…By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.”(Pg. 47, last full para.)
b) “Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue.” (pg. 47, last full para.)
14) Ayn Rand gives an example of one hearing “…that the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine. [sic] if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out.” (pg. 48, Sig. Ed. Second full para from top) The example of voluntary, non-sacrificial charity given is an example of helping out others in one’s local community (one’s neighbor). Would Ayn Rand’s philosophy tend to encourage such local charity over giving to anonymous individuals that are not in one’s local community?
Answer: I tend to think yes, because people you actually know or people in your own community would tend to be of greater actual or potential value to you, and you could also better determine if they are in need of food/medicine/shelter because of their own irrationality, or if they are helpless through no fault of their own.
15) What are the metaphysics of the altruist morality? What are the metaphysics of the egoist morality? What fact does Ayn Rand point to show that the altruist metaphysics is wrong?
a) The malevolent universe metaphysics. (pg. 48, bottom)
b) The benevolent universe premise.
c) “As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics –as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of existence –observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.”(pg. 49, first full para. At top)
1) What is the theme of this essay? (“Theme” being defined as what an author wants to say about the particular subject he has chosen to write about.)
Answer: For those who have already accepted that man is not a sacrificial animal, and that help to others is not a moral duty, what are the principles by which one identifies and evaluates the instances involving a man’s nonsacrificial help to others. (Sig. Ed., pg. 44, 2nd full para down.) In other words, is helping others always inconsistent with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and if not, when is it okay to help others?
2) What is an “emergency”?
3) What does Ayn Rand mean by the “hierarchy of values”? (You may need to look at an outside source, such as “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” –see entry on “Teleological Measurement”- for this answer.)
4) What is a “sacrifice” according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy? Give a made-up example of what, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, would be regarded as a “sacrifice”. What does Ayn Rand regard as the “rational principle of conduct” regarding one’s hierarchy of values?
a) “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non-value. (pg. 44, 3rd full para. Down)
b) A man has to choose between saving his drowning wife and saving a drowning stray dog, and chooses to save the dog.
c) “…always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.” (pg. 44, 3rd full para. Down)
5) What is “love”, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy? What are some of the different types of love, and why are they all still considered to be love?
a) “…love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.” (pg. 44, 2nd full para from the top.)
b)
6) In discussing the issue of helping others with critics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I often find that they will claim that any sort of regard or liking of other people is forbidden by her philosophy. They will claim that ascribing to Ayn Rand’s philosophy means that one must renounce any desire to be around other people. In the realm of economics, this view is easily refuted, since the division of labor, based on the principle of trade, clearly makes business associations with others in one’s self interest. (Imagine trying to produce all of the material products that you enjoy on your own without the benefit of trade with other human beings.) However, in the realm of love, the benefits of one’s friends and lovers are often less tangible. Describe some of the benefits associated with friendship and love.
7) In “The Ethics of Emergencies”, Ayn Rand describes a husband who spends a fortune to save his sick wife, and explains that this is not a sacrifice, and therefore is in his self-interest. She presents a counter-example to show why this is in fact not a sacrifice by the husband. Describe that counter-example.
Answer: “But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him –as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice.” (pg. 45, Second Full Para Down)
8) What does Ayn Rand say is the “…proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person…”? Describe how Ayn Rand answers the question of whether one should save a drowning person based on this method.
a) “…by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.” (pg. 45, Second Full Para From Bottom)
b) “If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself.”(Pg. 45, First full para from bottom.)
9) Ayn Rand says that deciding whether to save a drowning person (or a person in a fire, or other emergency) depends on how much of a value the drowning person is, and that the greater the value, the greater the risk one should be willing to take. (See pg. 45 of Signet Ed., Second Full Para From Bottom) Define what “risk” means in this context.
Answer: Risk is probably defined in this situation as something like "the chance that your life will be harmed".
10) At the beginning of the essay, Ayn Rand describes four of the psychological/intellectual consequences of one who accepts the morality of altruism. The third is described as “A nightmare view of existence –since he [the altruist] believes that men are trapped in a ‘malevolent universe’ where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.” Later in the essay, she then discusses the issue of whether one should save a drowning person (pg. 45, Signet Ed., First Full Para From bottom), and says: “If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself.” She seems to think that at least two factors should be taken into consideration in deciding what to do in this situation: First, what is the value of the person to you, and, second what is the risk of you dying in the rescue attempt? How would a “malevolent universe premise” affect this calculation?
Answer: A person who believes that the universe is “out to get them” will tend to think that any action they take is going to end in failure, and will therefore perceive the risk as great. A man who does not ascribe to the altruist ethics will tend to hold the opposite viewpoint, and therefore, will view the risk of saving a drowning person in a more realistic perspective, and will therefore be more likely to take action despite the relatively low value of the drowning person to him.
11) Ayn Rand says that “The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not ‘selflessness’ or ‘sacrifice’, but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.” Consider two examples of a person who acts in an emergency to defend his values: (1) A mother who runs into a burning building to save her children, despite the great risk to herself. (2) A man who enlists in the Army to fight in a war necessary to defend his country’s freedom, despite the possibility of being killed in combat. In both of these situations, commentators in our popular culture would tend to describe these people as “brave” or “courageous”, rather than as having “integrity”. Is it possible to reconcile the description Ayn Rand gives of these people (having integrity) with the description that our popular culture would give (having courage)?
Answer: I suspect Ayn Rand probably thought that courage is a form of integrity.
12) What attitude does Ayn Rand think one should have towards strangers, given the subject of this essay? Why does she think this is the proper attitude? What does Ayn Rand mean by “species solidarity”? In judging others, what is the initial premise one should act from when meeting a stranger?
a) “The generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of potential value he represents –until and unless he forfeits it.” (pg. 46, last full para)
b) “A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and, as such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter), that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him.” (pg. 46, bottom)
c) (pg. 47, first full para from top)
d) All men are innocent until proven guilty. (pg. 47, Second full para down)
13) What does Ayn Rand mean by “metaphysically normal” conditions, as opposed to an “emergency situation”? What is the goal in an emergency situation?
a) “By ‘normal’ conditions, I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire…By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.”(Pg. 47, last full para.)
b) “Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue.” (pg. 47, last full para.)
14) Ayn Rand gives an example of one hearing “…that the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine. [sic] if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out.” (pg. 48, Sig. Ed. Second full para from top) The example of voluntary, non-sacrificial charity given is an example of helping out others in one’s local community (one’s neighbor). Would Ayn Rand’s philosophy tend to encourage such local charity over giving to anonymous individuals that are not in one’s local community?
Answer: I tend to think yes, because people you actually know or people in your own community would tend to be of greater actual or potential value to you, and you could also better determine if they are in need of food/medicine/shelter because of their own irrationality, or if they are helpless through no fault of their own.
15) What are the metaphysics of the altruist morality? What are the metaphysics of the egoist morality? What fact does Ayn Rand point to show that the altruist metaphysics is wrong?
a) The malevolent universe metaphysics. (pg. 48, bottom)
b) The benevolent universe premise.
c) “As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics –as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of existence –observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.”(pg. 49, first full para. At top)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Meeting to Discuss "The Ethics of Emergencies" by Ayn
What: Discussion of "The Ethics of Emergencies" by Ayn
Rand, in _The Virtue of Selfishness_, using questions
attached. Please read (or re-read) the essay before
you come.
Where/When: Sign up with yahoo group for time and location information
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/
Questions: (Please print out)
1) What is the theme of this essay? (“Theme” being
defined as what an author wants to say about the
particular subject he has chosen to write about.)
2) What is an “emergency”?
3) What does Ayn Rand mean by the “hierarchy of
values”? (You may need to look at an outside source,
such as “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” –see entry on
“Teleological Measurement”- for this answer.)
4) What is a “sacrifice” according to Ayn Rand’s
philosophy? Give a made-up example of what, according
to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, would be regarded as a
“sacrifice”. What does Ayn Rand regard as the
“rational principle of conduct” regarding one’s
hierarchy of values?
5) What is “love”, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
What are some of the different types of love, and why
are they all still considered to be love?
6) In discussing the issue of helping others with
critics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I often find that
they will claim that any sort of regard or liking of
other people is forbidden by her philosophy. They
will claim that ascribing to Ayn Rand’s philosophy
means that one must renounce any desire to be around
other people. In the realm of economics, this view is
easily refuted, since the division of labor, based on
the principle of trade, clearly makes business
associations with others in one’s self interest.
(Imagine trying to produce all of the material
products that you enjoy on your own without the
benefit of trade with other human beings.) However,
in the realm of love, the benefits of one’s friends
and lovers are often less tangible. Describe some of
the benefits associated with friendship and love.
7) In “The Ethics of Emergencies”, Ayn Rand describes
a husband who spends a fortune to save his sick wife,
and explains that this is not a sacrifice, and
therefore is in his self-interest. She presents a
counter-example to show why this is in fact not a
sacrifice by the husband. Describe that
counter-example.
8) What does Ayn Rand say is the “…proper method of
judging when or whether one should help another
person…”? Describe how Ayn Rand answers the question
of whether one should save a drowning person based on
this method.
9) Ayn Rand says that deciding whether to save a
drowning person (or a person in a fire, or other
emergency) depends on how much of a value the drowning
person is, and that the greater the value, the greater
the risk one should be willing to take. (See pg. 45 of
Signet Ed., Second Full Para From Bottom) Define what
“risk” means in this context.
10) At the beginning of the essay, Ayn Rand describes
four of the psychological/intellectual consequences of
one who accepts the morality of altruism. The third
is described as “A nightmare view of existence –since
he [the altruist] believes that men are trapped in a
‘malevolent universe’ where disasters are the constant
and primary concern of their lives.” Later in the
essay, she then discusses the issue of whether one
should save a drowning person (pg. 45, Signet Ed.,
First Full Para From bottom), and says: “If the person
to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to
save him only when the danger to one’s own life is
minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral
to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a
stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take
is greater in proportion to the greatness of that
person’s value to oneself.” She seems to think that
at least two factors should be taken into
consideration in deciding what to do in this
situation: First, what is the value of the person to
you, and, second what is the risk of you dying in the
rescue attempt? How would a “malevolent universe
premise” affect this calculation?
11) Ayn Rand says that “The virtue involved in helping
those one loves is not ‘selflessness’ or ‘sacrifice’,
but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s
convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in
accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding
and translating them into practical reality. If a man
professes to love a woman, yet his actions are
indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his
lack of integrity that makes him immoral.” Consider
two examples of a person who acts in an emergency to
defend his values: (1) A mother who runs into a
burning building to save her children, despite the
great risk to herself. (2) A man who enlists in the
Army to fight in a war necessary to defend his
country’s freedom, despite the possibility of being
killed in combat. In both of these situations,
commentators in our popular culture would tend to
describe these people as “brave” or “courageous”,
rather than as having “integrity”. Is it possible to
reconcile the description Ayn Rand gives of these
people (having integrity) with the description that
our popular culture would give (having courage)?
12) What attitude does Ayn Rand think one should have
towards strangers, given the subject of this essay?
Why does she think this is the proper attitude? What
does Ayn Rand mean by “species solidarity”? In
judging others, what is the initial premise one should
act from when meeting a stranger?
13) What does Ayn Rand mean by “metaphysically
normal” conditions, as opposed to an “emergency
situation”? What is the goal in an emergency
situation?
14) Ayn Rand gives an example of one hearing “…that
the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and
poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are
part of the normal risks of existence; but since the
man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food
and medicine. [sic] if one can afford it (as an
act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund
among the neighbors to help him out.” (pg. 48, Sig.
Ed. Second full para from top) The example of
voluntary, non-sacrificial charity given is an example
of helping out others in one’s local community (one’s
neighbor). Would Ayn Rand’s philosophy tend to
encourage such local charity over giving to anonymous
individuals that are not in one’s local community?
15) What are the metaphysics of the altruist morality?
What are the metaphysics of the egoist morality?
What fact does Ayn Rand point to show that the
altruist metaphysics is wrong?
Rand, in _The Virtue of Selfishness_, using questions
attached. Please read (or re-read) the essay before
you come.
Where/When: Sign up with yahoo group for time and location information
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/
Questions: (Please print out)
1) What is the theme of this essay? (“Theme” being
defined as what an author wants to say about the
particular subject he has chosen to write about.)
2) What is an “emergency”?
3) What does Ayn Rand mean by the “hierarchy of
values”? (You may need to look at an outside source,
such as “The Ayn Rand Lexicon” –see entry on
“Teleological Measurement”- for this answer.)
4) What is a “sacrifice” according to Ayn Rand’s
philosophy? Give a made-up example of what, according
to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, would be regarded as a
“sacrifice”. What does Ayn Rand regard as the
“rational principle of conduct” regarding one’s
hierarchy of values?
5) What is “love”, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?
What are some of the different types of love, and why
are they all still considered to be love?
6) In discussing the issue of helping others with
critics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I often find that
they will claim that any sort of regard or liking of
other people is forbidden by her philosophy. They
will claim that ascribing to Ayn Rand’s philosophy
means that one must renounce any desire to be around
other people. In the realm of economics, this view is
easily refuted, since the division of labor, based on
the principle of trade, clearly makes business
associations with others in one’s self interest.
(Imagine trying to produce all of the material
products that you enjoy on your own without the
benefit of trade with other human beings.) However,
in the realm of love, the benefits of one’s friends
and lovers are often less tangible. Describe some of
the benefits associated with friendship and love.
7) In “The Ethics of Emergencies”, Ayn Rand describes
a husband who spends a fortune to save his sick wife,
and explains that this is not a sacrifice, and
therefore is in his self-interest. She presents a
counter-example to show why this is in fact not a
sacrifice by the husband. Describe that
counter-example.
8) What does Ayn Rand say is the “…proper method of
judging when or whether one should help another
person…”? Describe how Ayn Rand answers the question
of whether one should save a drowning person based on
this method.
9) Ayn Rand says that deciding whether to save a
drowning person (or a person in a fire, or other
emergency) depends on how much of a value the drowning
person is, and that the greater the value, the greater
the risk one should be willing to take. (See pg. 45 of
Signet Ed., Second Full Para From Bottom) Define what
“risk” means in this context.
10) At the beginning of the essay, Ayn Rand describes
four of the psychological/intellectual consequences of
one who accepts the morality of altruism. The third
is described as “A nightmare view of existence –since
he [the altruist] believes that men are trapped in a
‘malevolent universe’ where disasters are the constant
and primary concern of their lives.” Later in the
essay, she then discusses the issue of whether one
should save a drowning person (pg. 45, Signet Ed.,
First Full Para From bottom), and says: “If the person
to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to
save him only when the danger to one’s own life is
minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral
to attempt it…If the person to be saved is not a
stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take
is greater in proportion to the greatness of that
person’s value to oneself.” She seems to think that
at least two factors should be taken into
consideration in deciding what to do in this
situation: First, what is the value of the person to
you, and, second what is the risk of you dying in the
rescue attempt? How would a “malevolent universe
premise” affect this calculation?
11) Ayn Rand says that “The virtue involved in helping
those one loves is not ‘selflessness’ or ‘sacrifice’,
but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s
convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in
accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding
and translating them into practical reality. If a man
professes to love a woman, yet his actions are
indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his
lack of integrity that makes him immoral.” Consider
two examples of a person who acts in an emergency to
defend his values: (1) A mother who runs into a
burning building to save her children, despite the
great risk to herself. (2) A man who enlists in the
Army to fight in a war necessary to defend his
country’s freedom, despite the possibility of being
killed in combat. In both of these situations,
commentators in our popular culture would tend to
describe these people as “brave” or “courageous”,
rather than as having “integrity”. Is it possible to
reconcile the description Ayn Rand gives of these
people (having integrity) with the description that
our popular culture would give (having courage)?
12) What attitude does Ayn Rand think one should have
towards strangers, given the subject of this essay?
Why does she think this is the proper attitude? What
does Ayn Rand mean by “species solidarity”? In
judging others, what is the initial premise one should
act from when meeting a stranger?
13) What does Ayn Rand mean by “metaphysically
normal” conditions, as opposed to an “emergency
situation”? What is the goal in an emergency
situation?
14) Ayn Rand gives an example of one hearing “…that
the man next door is ill and penniless. Illness and
poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are
part of the normal risks of existence; but since the
man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food
and medicine. [sic] if one can afford it (as an
act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund
among the neighbors to help him out.” (pg. 48, Sig.
Ed. Second full para from top) The example of
voluntary, non-sacrificial charity given is an example
of helping out others in one’s local community (one’s
neighbor). Would Ayn Rand’s philosophy tend to
encourage such local charity over giving to anonymous
individuals that are not in one’s local community?
15) What are the metaphysics of the altruist morality?
What are the metaphysics of the egoist morality?
What fact does Ayn Rand point to show that the
altruist metaphysics is wrong?
Monday, July 23, 2007
Discussion of Ayn Rand on Compromise
What: Discussion of two fairly short essays by Ayn Rand on the issue of compromise and principle:
(1)“The Anatomy of Compromise” (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal...http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9950892-6061602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185200827&sr=8-1)
and
(2) “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” (in The Virtue of Selfishness- http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9950892-6061602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185200932&sr=8-1)
When: Sunday, July 29, 2007
Where: Sign up here for time and location details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/
Proposed Questions:
1) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of a “principle”? Give an example of a “principle”. Ayn Rand said that a “…concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition…” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Ed. By Harry Binswanger, “Concepts”), what, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, are the similarities and differences between a “principle” on the one hand and a “concept” on the other?
2) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of “compromise”?
3) Ayn Rand’s definition of (rational) compromise rests on the idea that two or more parties have “conflicting claims” that are then “adjusted by mutual concessions”. Give an example of what she means by “conflicting claims”, and then explain how there could be “mutual concessions” to “adjust” this conflict.
4) Reconcile Ayn Rand’s assertion that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men” (see “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests”, The Virtue of Selfishness, emphasis added), with her assertion that a legitimate compromise involves an adjustment of “conflicting claims” by mutual concessions. (See “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?”, The Virtue of Selfishness)
5) Three common areas of life that are said to require compromise are at work, marriage, and politics. Give an example of the type of compromise Ayn Rand would say is proper in these three areas, and also give an example of what Ayn Rand would regard as a violation of principle, and therefore not a proper compromise, in these three areas.
6) In “The Anatomy of Compromise”, Ayn Rand describes three “...rules about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals…”. Give an example of these three rules in action from: history, contemporary affairs, your own personal experiences, or from a fictional novel or story (that was not written by Ayn Rand).
7) Describe the psychological and existential components causing the first principle described by Ayn Rand in “The Anatomy of Compromise”, to be true, (that “In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.”)
8) In “The Anatomy of Compromise”, Ayn Rand says that in the conflict between the Republicans and the Democrats, that since the “Democrats are more consistently committed to the growth of government power, the Republicans are reduced to helpless ‘me-too’ing’, to inept plagiarism of any program initiated by the Democrats…” and that if neither party chooses to reject “altruism-collectivism-statism”, then “…the logic of the events created by their common basic principles will keep dragging them both further and further to the left.” She went on to say that in this conflict, if and when “…the ‘conservatives’ are kicked out of the game altogether, the same conflict will continue between the ‘liberals’ and the avowed socialists; when the socialists win, the conflict will continue between the socialists and the communists; when the communists win, the ultimate goal of altruism will be achieved: universal immolation.” How did she respond to the question that since the advocates of a mixed economy (such as the ‘conservatives’) are also advocating freedom, at least in part, why does the irrational part of their mixture have to win?
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by the term “collaboration” in her statement that “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” (The Anatomy of Compromise)? In other words, what is the definition of “collaboration”, as used here? Give an example of a “collaboration”.
10) Given the fact that neither major political party in the US (the Republicans and the Democrats) are consistent advocates of what Rand would regard as a free society, would Ayn Rand have viewed it as a violation of the three rules set forth in “The Anatomy of Compromise” if one were to vote for one or the other major party, simply because you viewed the other party as the bigger threat to freedom? (This question is inspired by Leonard Peikoff’s argument that an Objectivist that was true to his philosophy would have to vote Democrat in the last, 2006, mid-term elections.) Another way of seeing this question is: can Leonard Peikoff’s position regarding the need to vote Democrat in the 2006 mid-term elections be reconciled with Rand’s position that in “…any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins…” in “The Anatomy of Compromise”?
************************************************
Inspiration for Question Number 10:
(http://www.peikoff.com/
October 19, 2006 entry: "Peikoff on the coming election")
(1)“The Anatomy of Compromise” (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal...http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9950892-6061602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185200827&sr=8-1)
and
(2) “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” (in The Virtue of Selfishness- http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9950892-6061602?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185200932&sr=8-1)
When: Sunday, July 29, 2007
Where: Sign up here for time and location details: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/
Proposed Questions:
1) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of a “principle”? Give an example of a “principle”. Ayn Rand said that a “…concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition…” (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, Ed. By Harry Binswanger, “Concepts”), what, according to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, are the similarities and differences between a “principle” on the one hand and a “concept” on the other?
2) What is Ayn Rand’s definition of “compromise”?
3) Ayn Rand’s definition of (rational) compromise rests on the idea that two or more parties have “conflicting claims” that are then “adjusted by mutual concessions”. Give an example of what she means by “conflicting claims”, and then explain how there could be “mutual concessions” to “adjust” this conflict.
4) Reconcile Ayn Rand’s assertion that “there are no conflicts of interests among rational men” (see “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests”, The Virtue of Selfishness, emphasis added), with her assertion that a legitimate compromise involves an adjustment of “conflicting claims” by mutual concessions. (See “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?”, The Virtue of Selfishness)
5) Three common areas of life that are said to require compromise are at work, marriage, and politics. Give an example of the type of compromise Ayn Rand would say is proper in these three areas, and also give an example of what Ayn Rand would regard as a violation of principle, and therefore not a proper compromise, in these three areas.
6) In “The Anatomy of Compromise”, Ayn Rand describes three “...rules about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals…”. Give an example of these three rules in action from: history, contemporary affairs, your own personal experiences, or from a fictional novel or story (that was not written by Ayn Rand).
7) Describe the psychological and existential components causing the first principle described by Ayn Rand in “The Anatomy of Compromise”, to be true, (that “In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.”)
8) In “The Anatomy of Compromise”, Ayn Rand says that in the conflict between the Republicans and the Democrats, that since the “Democrats are more consistently committed to the growth of government power, the Republicans are reduced to helpless ‘me-too’ing’, to inept plagiarism of any program initiated by the Democrats…” and that if neither party chooses to reject “altruism-collectivism-statism”, then “…the logic of the events created by their common basic principles will keep dragging them both further and further to the left.” She went on to say that in this conflict, if and when “…the ‘conservatives’ are kicked out of the game altogether, the same conflict will continue between the ‘liberals’ and the avowed socialists; when the socialists win, the conflict will continue between the socialists and the communists; when the communists win, the ultimate goal of altruism will be achieved: universal immolation.” How did she respond to the question that since the advocates of a mixed economy (such as the ‘conservatives’) are also advocating freedom, at least in part, why does the irrational part of their mixture have to win?
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by the term “collaboration” in her statement that “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” (The Anatomy of Compromise)? In other words, what is the definition of “collaboration”, as used here? Give an example of a “collaboration”.
10) Given the fact that neither major political party in the US (the Republicans and the Democrats) are consistent advocates of what Rand would regard as a free society, would Ayn Rand have viewed it as a violation of the three rules set forth in “The Anatomy of Compromise” if one were to vote for one or the other major party, simply because you viewed the other party as the bigger threat to freedom? (This question is inspired by Leonard Peikoff’s argument that an Objectivist that was true to his philosophy would have to vote Democrat in the last, 2006, mid-term elections.) Another way of seeing this question is: can Leonard Peikoff’s position regarding the need to vote Democrat in the 2006 mid-term elections be reconciled with Rand’s position that in “…any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins…” in “The Anatomy of Compromise”?
************************************************
Inspiration for Question Number 10:
(http://www.peikoff.com/
October 19, 2006 entry: "Peikoff on the coming election")
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests by Ayn Rand Questions and Possible Answers
--- In opar@yahoogroups.com
There was some good discussion of this essay yesterday. Here were the answers that I came up with to the questions I made. (I didn't come up with answers for all of them.) Further thoughts after group discussion are included in brackets:
1) What is the theme of this essay?
An explanation of why there are no conflicts of interest among
rational men in a free society. (First page, first para.)
2) What is given as a common counter-example of the Objectivist assertion that there are no conflicts of interest among rational men?
The example of two people applying for the same job, where only one will be hired. (First page, second para)
3) What are the four interrelated considerations which are involved in a rational man's view of his interests, but which are ignored or evaded by the presentation of the counter-example of two people competing for the same job?
"Reality", "Context", "Responsibility", and "Effort" (first page, third paragraph)
4) What, in this context, does Ayn Rand mean by "Reality", as it relates to the issue of there being no conflict of interest among rational men? Give an example of an irrational desire, and explain why this is not what Rand means by being in one's self-interest.
a) The term "interests" is a wide abstraction that includes issues of man's values, desires, his goals, and their actual achievement in reality. "Desires" are not tools of cognition, and they are not a valid standard of value. The fact that man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good for him or in his actual self-interest. A man may desire something that contradicts reality.
b)
5) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Context"?
Context means considering an idea in relation to one's other ideas, and, ultimately, in relation to the facts of reality.
6) What is "Context-Dropping"? Give two examples of it.
a) "Context-Dropping" is one of the chief psychological tools of evasion. In regard to one's desires, there are two major ways of context dropping: the issues of range and means.
b) Two Examples of "Context Dropping":
i) "…comparing the virtues of rinsing a dish from the faucet versus dipping it into a pan of rinse water which fairly quickly is no longer pure. When my children were growing up, I often said to them that the aim in washing dishes is not to get the dishes clean but rather to dilute the dirt to an acceptable degree." (pg 226, "The
Ultimate Resource II", by Julian L. Simon ISBN 0-691-00381-5, Chapter 15)
Simon takes the concept of "clean", which *in this context* is washing the dishes with water and soap to make them sufficiently clean to eat off of without risk of disease, and drops it, to imply that the dishes aren't "really clean", but in this context, that is what "clean" means. [We noted in group discussion that Simon is probably dropping context as to "range" in this quote.]
ii) Debate on Floor of Texas State Senate on 4/9/03 regarding SB 83 (Moment of Silence Statute) (See Croft v. Perry, Northern Distric of Texas) On transcript, page 6, Lines 2-5: "Senator Hinojosa: Why –Why are we mandating the schools to do that?
Senator Wentworth: Well, we're not yet. We haven't passed the bill…"
Senator Wentworth drops context because he knows full well (or should know full well) that Senator Hinojosa means why would the proposed bill (SB 83) mandate schools to require a moment of silence. He appears to be dropping context in this case as a sort of debating tactic to give himself more time to think of a response to what he knows Senator Hinojosa's question to be.
7) Are all "Context-Droppers" engaged in "evasion"? What is "evasion" according to Rand? (You may need to go to other writings by Ayn Rand to answer this question, such as "Galt's Speech" in Atlas Shrugged; or The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. Harry Binswanger, see entry on "Evasion".)
a) [The consensus answer during group discussion seemed to be yes.]
b) (Evasion) "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think –not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment –on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict "It is."…" (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand; see also, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. By Harry Binswanger, "Evasion")
8) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Responsibility", as it relates to her assertion that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men"? Why does Ayn Rand seem to believe that a person who does not take responsibility for achieving his own goals will tend to adopt the attitude of not being concerned with the interests and lives of others? ("In dropping the responsibility for one's own interests and life, one drops the responsibility of ever having to consider the interests and lives of others –of those who are, somehow, to provide the satisfaction of one's desires." ("The `Conflicts' of Men's Interests" by Ayn Rand, pg 54, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Signet, ISBN 0-451-16393-1).)
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Effort", as it relates to her assertion that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men"?
>
>
10) Why does Ayn Rand think that there are no conflicts among rational men only if one lives in a free society? What aspects of an unfree society would make such conflicts inevitable in her view?
There was some good discussion of this essay yesterday. Here were the answers that I came up with to the questions I made. (I didn't come up with answers for all of them.) Further thoughts after group discussion are included in brackets:
1) What is the theme of this essay?
An explanation of why there are no conflicts of interest among
rational men in a free society. (First page, first para.)
2) What is given as a common counter-example of the Objectivist assertion that there are no conflicts of interest among rational men?
The example of two people applying for the same job, where only one will be hired. (First page, second para)
3) What are the four interrelated considerations which are involved in a rational man's view of his interests, but which are ignored or evaded by the presentation of the counter-example of two people competing for the same job?
"Reality", "Context", "Responsibility", and "Effort" (first page, third paragraph)
4) What, in this context, does Ayn Rand mean by "Reality", as it relates to the issue of there being no conflict of interest among rational men? Give an example of an irrational desire, and explain why this is not what Rand means by being in one's self-interest.
a) The term "interests" is a wide abstraction that includes issues of man's values, desires, his goals, and their actual achievement in reality. "Desires" are not tools of cognition, and they are not a valid standard of value. The fact that man desires something does not constitute a proof that the object of his desire is good for him or in his actual self-interest. A man may desire something that contradicts reality.
b)
5) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Context"?
Context means considering an idea in relation to one's other ideas, and, ultimately, in relation to the facts of reality.
6) What is "Context-Dropping"? Give two examples of it.
a) "Context-Dropping" is one of the chief psychological tools of evasion. In regard to one's desires, there are two major ways of context dropping: the issues of range and means.
b) Two Examples of "Context Dropping":
i) "…comparing the virtues of rinsing a dish from the faucet versus dipping it into a pan of rinse water which fairly quickly is no longer pure. When my children were growing up, I often said to them that the aim in washing dishes is not to get the dishes clean but rather to dilute the dirt to an acceptable degree." (pg 226, "The
Ultimate Resource II", by Julian L. Simon ISBN 0-691-00381-5, Chapter 15)
Simon takes the concept of "clean", which *in this context* is washing the dishes with water and soap to make them sufficiently clean to eat off of without risk of disease, and drops it, to imply that the dishes aren't "really clean", but in this context, that is what "clean" means. [We noted in group discussion that Simon is probably dropping context as to "range" in this quote.]
ii) Debate on Floor of Texas State Senate on 4/9/03 regarding SB 83 (Moment of Silence Statute) (See Croft v. Perry, Northern Distric of Texas) On transcript, page 6, Lines 2-5: "Senator Hinojosa: Why –Why are we mandating the schools to do that?
Senator Wentworth: Well, we're not yet. We haven't passed the bill…"
Senator Wentworth drops context because he knows full well (or should know full well) that Senator Hinojosa means why would the proposed bill (SB 83) mandate schools to require a moment of silence. He appears to be dropping context in this case as a sort of debating tactic to give himself more time to think of a response to what he knows Senator Hinojosa's question to be.
7) Are all "Context-Droppers" engaged in "evasion"? What is "evasion" according to Rand? (You may need to go to other writings by Ayn Rand to answer this question, such as "Galt's Speech" in Atlas Shrugged; or The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. Harry Binswanger, see entry on "Evasion".)
a) [The consensus answer during group discussion seemed to be yes.]
b) (Evasion) "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think –not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment –on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict "It is."…" (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand; see also, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. By Harry Binswanger, "Evasion")
8) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Responsibility", as it relates to her assertion that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men"? Why does Ayn Rand seem to believe that a person who does not take responsibility for achieving his own goals will tend to adopt the attitude of not being concerned with the interests and lives of others? ("In dropping the responsibility for one's own interests and life, one drops the responsibility of ever having to consider the interests and lives of others –of those who are, somehow, to provide the satisfaction of one's desires." ("The `Conflicts' of Men's Interests" by Ayn Rand, pg 54, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Signet, ISBN 0-451-16393-1).)
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by "Effort", as it relates to her assertion that "there are no conflicts of interest among rational men"?
>
>
10) Why does Ayn Rand think that there are no conflicts among rational men only if one lives in a free society? What aspects of an unfree society would make such conflicts inevitable in her view?
Friday, July 06, 2007
"The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests"
When: July 15, 2007
Where: Sign up with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for location and time information
What: There has been a request to try something new after we finished OPAR, so at this meeting we will discuss "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" by Ayn Rand, found in The Virtue of Selfishness ( http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4637697-5007625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183758378&sr=8-1 ).
Even if you have read this essay several times already, I ask that you read it again before you come, so that it is fresh in your mind.
I have prepared some questions to help keep the discussion going:
1) What is the theme of this essay?
2) What is given as a common counter-example of the Objectivist assertion that there are no conflicts of interest among rational men?
3) What are the four interrelated considerations which are involved in a rational man’s view of his interests, but which are ignored or evaded by the presentation of the counter-example of two people competing for the same job?
4) What, in this context, does Ayn Rand mean by “Reality”, as it relates to the issue of there being no conflict of interest among rational men? Give an example of an irrational desire, and explain why this is not what Rand means by being in one’s self-interest.
5) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Context”?
6) What is “Context-Dropping”? Give two examples of it.
7) Are all “Context-Droppers” engaged in “evasion”? What is “evasion” according to Rand? (You may need to go to other writings by Ayn Rand to answer this question, such as “Galt’s Speech” in Atlas Shrugged; or The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. Harry Binswanger, see entry on “Evasion”.)
8) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Responsibility”, as it relates to her assertion that “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men”? Why does Ayn Rand seem to believe that a person who does not take responsibility for achieving his own goals will tend to adopt the attitude of not being concerned with the interests and lives of others? (“In dropping the responsibility for one’s own interests and life, one drops the responsibility of ever having to consider the interests and lives of others –of those who are, somehow, to provide the satisfaction of one’s desires.” (“The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests” by Ayn Rand, pg 54, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Signet, ISBN 0-451-16393-1).)
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Effort”, as it relates to her assertion that “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men”?
10) Why does Ayn Rand think that there are no conflicts among rational men only if one lives in a free society? What aspects of an unfree society would make such conflicts inevitable in her view?
Where: Sign up with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/ for location and time information
What: There has been a request to try something new after we finished OPAR, so at this meeting we will discuss "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests" by Ayn Rand, found in The Virtue of Selfishness ( http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4637697-5007625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183758378&sr=8-1 ).
Even if you have read this essay several times already, I ask that you read it again before you come, so that it is fresh in your mind.
I have prepared some questions to help keep the discussion going:
1) What is the theme of this essay?
2) What is given as a common counter-example of the Objectivist assertion that there are no conflicts of interest among rational men?
3) What are the four interrelated considerations which are involved in a rational man’s view of his interests, but which are ignored or evaded by the presentation of the counter-example of two people competing for the same job?
4) What, in this context, does Ayn Rand mean by “Reality”, as it relates to the issue of there being no conflict of interest among rational men? Give an example of an irrational desire, and explain why this is not what Rand means by being in one’s self-interest.
5) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Context”?
6) What is “Context-Dropping”? Give two examples of it.
7) Are all “Context-Droppers” engaged in “evasion”? What is “evasion” according to Rand? (You may need to go to other writings by Ayn Rand to answer this question, such as “Galt’s Speech” in Atlas Shrugged; or The Ayn Rand Lexicon, ed. Harry Binswanger, see entry on “Evasion”.)
8) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Responsibility”, as it relates to her assertion that “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men”? Why does Ayn Rand seem to believe that a person who does not take responsibility for achieving his own goals will tend to adopt the attitude of not being concerned with the interests and lives of others? (“In dropping the responsibility for one’s own interests and life, one drops the responsibility of ever having to consider the interests and lives of others –of those who are, somehow, to provide the satisfaction of one’s desires.” (“The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests” by Ayn Rand, pg 54, _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Signet, ISBN 0-451-16393-1).)
9) What does Ayn Rand mean by “Effort”, as it relates to her assertion that “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men”?
10) Why does Ayn Rand think that there are no conflicts among rational men only if one lives in a free society? What aspects of an unfree society would make such conflicts inevitable in her view?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)