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)

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?

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")

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?

"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?

First Iteration of OPAR Finished

The study group for Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) has now been finished. We will probably start over from Chapter 1 at some point in the future. However, some of the participants have requested that we study some of Ayn Rand's nonfiction essays, so I intend to create questions for some her essays to use in group discussion, similar to the OPAR study guide. If you want to be kept up to date on this, please sign up with the yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Dean Cook

Next OPAR meeting: Sunday, June 4, 2006

When: Sunday, June 4, 2006

What: "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand",

Sign up with the OPAR yahoo group for time and location details.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next Meeting May 28, 2006

When: Sunday, May 28, 2006

What: "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Chapter 7, starting on the Section titled: "Man's Life as the Standard of Moral Value"

Sign up with the OPAR yahoo group for time and location details.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Living Beings as Neither Mechanistic nor Vitalistic

This is in reference to the passage in _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ by Leonard Peikoff, starting around page 192, in the Soft Cover version. ("Materialists today, dedicated to monism (and to rewriting reality), insist that every science be "reducible" to physics in a sense that denies both consciousness (see chapter 1) and life...") It was noted at a recent meeting of the Plano OPAR group that other Objectivist philosophers seem to have said something different on this issue. ("Biology: mechanism vs. vitalism")

***********************************************
Since I was the one presenting a third alternative to living beings being either mechanistic or vitalistic at the OPAR study group (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), permit me to expand upon my view.


My dictionary defines "mechanism" as: 9) (philosophy) (a) the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics; (b) the view that all biological processes may be described in physiochemical terms. My dictionary defines "vitalism" as: 2) (biology) the doctrine that ascribes the functions of a living organism to a vital principle distinct from chemical and physical forces.


I don't want to be rationalistic with this, so let me tease out the distinction in this manner: Mechanism says that all living beings function like a clock (which needs to be wound up for the motion to continue); and vitalism say that all living beings function due a living force (that is something other than the forces found in physics).


Some people want to split a hair and claim that all *biological* motions are like the clock (say our beating heart), but consciousness (and especially a volitional consciousness) has its own form of functionality that is unlike the clock. In other words, our body functions like the clock, but our minds have a vital force that makes it possible to operate (without implying that it is possible for the mind to exist outside the body).


This sounds like the mind / body dichotomy, and one can't have it both ways. Our mind is part of our biology; it is not something that is somehow super-added to our bodies once the other pieces are put together.


The third alternative that I mentioned comes from a view of causality that is arrived at via observation. At the meeting, I gave the example of someone participating in the discussion versus the chair he was sitting on. As the person got up, walked around, participated in the discussion, drank a beverage, breathed, and did other things capable to him, the chair remained where it was put by him. The chair did not get involved in the discussion (as wooden as its participation might have been); it didn't reach for a drink; nor did it have to perform some sort of motion (like breathing) for it to remain in existence as the type of entity that it is. In other words, both the person and the chair acted according to what it was -- an entity acts according to its nature.


That is, the third alternative is *causality*. It is something specific and acts accordingly -- without doing more than it can as the type of entity that it is.


To tease this out further, let's say that one took two good sized rocks and broke one of them up into its constituent elements. This pulverized rock would become oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, carbon, etc. The two items (the rock and the pulverized collection of elements) are placed on a hillside and given a nudge to get them to act towards the downward side of the hill. The rock will roll down the hill, but the collection of elements would not. In fact, some of the pulverized rock would float up into the air, never to be seen again, whereas the piles of silicon and carbon would scatter a bit on the ground. So, even though the two rocks were identical in their composition, they behave differently.


While all living beings are composed of similar elements to the rock, they no longer function as a mere collection of elements. A biological cell, is not the same thing as its constituent elements, and a living being is not the same thing as a collection of cells. One could shred a complex living being down into its constituent cells, but that collection of cells would not function like the original living being -- in fact the original living being would die long before it was shredded into cells.


However, this does not mean that somehow life is super-added to the elements nor to the cells that a living being is composed of once the parts are put together. No, once the elements and the cells are put together *it becomes a different entity* which has different capabilities compared to the elements or to the cells. It does not become something more than the some of its parts, it becomes what it is.


And this is true of man's mind as well. Man is a specific type of entity that has a volitional consciousness, even though he is composed of elements and of cells.


However, this does not mean that a living being (even the lower forms) are merely a mechanism that simply reacts to its surroundings the way a machine would. Rather, all living beings (at some stage of their existence) *seek out* sustenance for the sake of remain what it is: A living entity.


I apologize if this comes across as a scatter-shot. So if you have any rebuttals, please have at it.

© 2006, T. Miovas
************************************

Next Meeting May 14

Next meeting is May 14, sign up with the yahoo group for location and time details.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next Meeting: April 30, 2006

When: April 30, this Sunday

What: Finish Chapter 5 of OPAR and Start on Chapter 6.

Sign up with the yahoo group for time and location details.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next OPAR Meeting: April 23

Next OPAR meeting April 23, at 3:30pm

We will finish all but possibly the last section of Chapter 5.

Sign up with the yahoo group listed in the links section for time and locatin details.

Sections of Chapter 5 Still Needing To Be Covered:

(1) "The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False"

(2) "Certainty as Contextual"

(3) "Mysticism and Skepticism As Denials of Reason"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next OPAR Meeting: April 9, 2006

Finishing the last section of chapter 4, and starting on chapter 5.
Sign up with yahoo groups page for time and location details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next Meeting March 19, 3:30pm

Join the yahoo group for time and location details.

Hopefully, we will finish chapter 4.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar-announce/

Next Meeting: March 5

Next Meeting is March 5.
Starting on Chapter 4
Sign up with the yahoo group for location and time details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next Meeting: February 19

Next meeting is February 19. We will hopefully finish Chapter 3.

Sign up with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

for meeting place and time details.

Next Meeting: February 12

Sign up with the yahoo group mentioned in the links section for time and location details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

Next Meeting: January 29

Sign up with the yahoo group mentioned in the links section for time and location details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/

More on quantum mechanics

This is some additional thinking on Quantum Mechanics by
our resident philosopher-physicist, who originaly posted
this response to a reader's question about Quantum Mechanics as
it related to my
posting
discussing, in part, the hierarchical nature of knowledge.
*************************************************************
Tom M. Wrote:
I think one reason why some scientists want to fight against the
idea that quantum particles jump from one position to another
(at least under certain circumstances) is that they tend to
think such particles as not being surrounded by anything (say in
the absence of fields or in the absence of being directly
influenced by other particles colliding with them).

But existence is a full plenum -- there is no nothing anywhere.
And, again, the reason for this is that existence is identity.
For there to be an actual bubble of nothing (or even a large
amount of it) surrounding elementary particles would be to say
that nothing is something, and that this
existent-which-has-no-identity could influence particles in any
way would also violate the law of causality. To be is to be
something specific, which also means it would act or change
according to its identity.

So, a further implication that the surrounded-by-nothing
advocates are claiming is that nothing can become something --
i.e. a given point in the nothing can suddenly become
transformed into a particle, as the particles moves from point A
to point B, with nothing in between; say at points A1 and A2,
those "points in space" go from having no quality to suddenly
having the quality of the particle as the particles passes
through them. And some physicists don't even mind saying that
something can come from nothing! Now, I'll grant you that some
of them don't mean it literally, but some of them do (as in the
Big Bang theory). And some of these physicists claim that a
particle that does jump does not pass through any point in
between. I think it "passes through" the sub-points A1 and A2,
but given the nature of that-which-is-in-between, it just can't
stop at those points.

Having a conception that there is something there can account
for some of the weird effects observed in quantum mechanics.
Whoever discovers its properties would have the right to name
it, but I like to call it the aether, and I've written a poem
about it on my website in the aesthetics section:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~philosophic-essays/esthetics.htm

The aether, or whatever it gets named, would have certain
specific properties and would act accordingly. So, instead of
having the conception that particles "pass through empty space"
the conception would be that such particles interact with
that-which-is-in-between and both the particle and the aether
would act according to their own identities -- which would then
be the answer to many of the weird effects investigated in
quantum mechanics (and probably Relativity as well).
©2006 Tom Miovas
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~philosophic-essays/

A Question From A Reader

One of The Readers of

"volition" as one of the "roots" of the concept "proof",
posted here on Thursday, January 5, 2006, Asks:

How does one (or, does one?) reach a 'that makes sense' level
dealing with Quantum Mechanics?
****************************************************
From Tom Miovas:

Unfortunately, many aspects of modern quantum mechanics are
not readily reducible to the perceptually self-evident, primarily
because many of its concepts are not grounded in reality by the
physicists who practice it -- and I say this as a physics and
philosophy major. In fact, many of the current quantum
physicists actually take glee in the fact that "it just doesn't
make sense," and you can hear them say this on popular science
shows. I'm not against the idea of quantization, but the way it
is represented in both physics class and popular science shows
leaves understanding to be desired. Physics, more than any other
actual science these days, needs a good philosophic washing.

However, some of the key concepts of quantization can be
reduced to the perceptually self-evident, and some of this was actually
done thousands of years ago by the Ancient Greeks. One of those
philosopher-physicists was Democritus, who came up with the
theory of atoms (yes, over two thousand years ago!).

While cutting up an apple one day, he realized that the apple
could be cut up into smaller and smaller pieces, and he wondered
just how small of a piece of apple one could get. Since the
rational Ancient Greek philosophers knew that the universe was
finite (something specific in *all* respects, existence is
identity to quote Ayn Rand), they also knew that there was no
such thing as the infinite or the infinitesimal. In other words,
one would have to reach a point at which one had the smallest
piece of apple that was possible -- it couldn't be made of an
infinite number of pieces because the apple is something finite
and specific.

Democritus called these smallest bits "atomos," which is where
we get the modern word "atom." So, if one starts cutting up an
apple, one can perceive that the bits get smaller and smaller,
and applying further reasoning, conclude that at some point one
will have the smallest bit of apple. Of course, we can't see
atoms, because they are so small, but this is one way of
grounding the idea of quantization of matter to the self-evident.

Where quantum mechanics seems to get weird is the idea that
energy, as well as matter, is quantized. But using the same
reasoning as Democritus, one can also conclude that there might
be a smallest distance one can travel or a smallest energy one
can exert. In fact, some of those same Ancient Greeks (possibly
Aristotle) gave that as an answer to Xeno's paradox.

Xeno's paradox has to do with moving in a straight line from one
position to another, always moving only half the distance
remaining. In other words, let's say one wanted to move from
point A to point B, which are twelve feet apart. The first move
is six feet, the second move is three feet, the third move is
one and a half feet, and so on. The question was: Would one
ever reach point B?

Relying on the idea of there being no infinitesimal anything and
no infinite amount of anything, one would have to conclude that
at some point of moving there would be a smallest distance one
could travel -- thus the last distance from point A to point B
would be covered in one leap at the end, so to speak.

And if one translates moving into a conceptualization of energy
(something acting or changing), then one can go from that idea
to the idea that at some point there is a smallest energy that
one could exert -- the universe cannot be comprised of either an
infinite amount of matter nor an infinite amount of possible
acting or changing (energy). In other words, at that
next-to-the-last point before taking that last smallest
movement, the energy required to move that smallest distance
would require some finite small amount of energy imparted to the
thing moving from point A to point B.

There are other aspects of quantum mechanics that I won't go
into here, but basically some of the physicists conclusions do
make sense, if one realizes that we live in a finite universe.

© 2006, T. Miovas
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~philosophic-essays/