I have mostly refrained from purely philosophical posts on this blog, but with the welcome addition of a particular commenting professor, I thought now is as good a time as ever to test my self-learned (unless a music performance degree counts) philosophical positions, that of Christian virtue ethics, against a well-educated critic. Professor, please be gentle.
Overall, my position would be that Objectivism is not so much wrong as incomplete.
There are certainly similarities between virtue ethics and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. On the primary matter of ethics, they share important common ground. My understanding of Rand's philosophy is that it is clearly opposed to separating morality from reality, and that acting on moral principle is desired over the alternative utilitarian "ends justify the means" approach. I think the teleology of Aristotle and Christianity agree with this.
Also, I view Aristotle’s position that eudaimonia (happiness or human flourishing) is achieved through applying reason is essentially the same as Objectivism’s. And beyond simply using reason for its own sake, both stress the end goal is fulfillment of purpose (telos), with reason being a critical method of creating value towards this purpose. Just as the ultimate value of an acorn is to fulfill its purpose to become an oak tree, both philosophies see purpose as critically intertwined with value.
Objectivism even uses the vocabulary of "virtue" to describe those acts increase or preserve value, most famously as the title of Rand's book "The Virtue of Selfishness" and in the philosophy's official virtues of rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride.
Where Christian Virtue Ethics begins to part ways with Objectivism is on Epistemology. To Ayn Rand (and perhaps Aristotle also), reason was the only path to truth. Thomas Aquinas, in synthesizing Virtue Ethics with Christianity, put forth that reason and divine revelation are not only in harmony, but both essential to epistemological truth. Eternal truth is found only where reason and revelation agree.
I think this is a fundamental point, as in my worldview, humans are not perfect beings. Even with the entirety of scientific, philosophical, and historical knowledge at man's disposal, it is prone to reason itself to conclusions which are imperfect or false. Likewise, depending only on subjective interpretation of divine revelation, man has failed time and again, often committing horrendous atrocities in the process.
Objectivists will wholly disagree any notion of the divine and divine revelation, much less its Epistemological importance, but it is from this departure from the are of common ground that magnifies the other differences, and I believe a point that undermines Objectivism itself.
So while Christian Virtue Ethics and Objectivism both emphasize asking “Who should I be?" or "What is my purpose?” or "What will bring purpose to my life?" before considering “Which action should I take?”, then resulting answers between the two philosophies will differ dramatically. Painting with a broad brush:
Christian Virtue Ethics (my humble interpretation):
Who should I be? / What is my purpose? / What will bring me happiness?
Man's purpose is to worship God, not only through faith, but by the way they live their lives.
How do I achieve my purpose and become happy/fulfilled?
Imitating Christ and following the commandments to love the lord our God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
To break this down a little:
Mind = rational self = reason and wisdom
Heart = non-rational self = emotion, appetite, desires
Soul = divine nature = To foster and grow the divine, and commune with the divine.
Strength = Our physical bodies, our labor, service
Loving neighbor as self = Acting with respect towards the dignity and interests of others.
Objectivism (using Ayn Rand Quotes)
Who should I be? / What is my purpose? / What will bring me happiness?
"Man is a being of self-made soul."
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
How do I achieve my purpose and become happy/fulfilled?
"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem."
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result."
--------
Having mentioned above that the rejection of the divine undermines Objectevism, I feel I should at least provide a few details on that matter. In order for any philosophy to be true, it has to account for observable realities. Throughout history, man has "flashed" their divine nature, whether that means unconditional love, altruism, sacrifice, or any other term one would prefer to use. Objectevism seems to fall apart in trying to rationally explain the willingness of people to act in this way. By relying on reason alone, how can an Objectivist empirically prove the objective universal truth of their most basic premises, that "that which promotes self" = good? Atheist Objectivism, at least in the manner I understand it, is therefore self-defeating because it depends on a subjective vision of a "heroic self."
So while I agree with a good bit of Ayn Rand's writings, I leave her philosophy on the shelf. Again, I would not so much call it wrong as incomplete. While it extols the use of mind and the body, it falls short in matters of the heart and soul, and reduces all interaction with neighbors to mutually beneficial trade.
Christianity and virtue ethics provide not only a philosophical framework to understand the universe, find truth, and know the purpose of man, but it also provides in Jesus Christ an ideal template for how to live a more abundant, soul-nourishing life. And above all, it approaches the human condition with grace, as through faith we have a hope beyond our failures to live up to that ideal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Yep, we disagree.
Truth, according to Objectivism, is anything that is consistent with reality. Truth can be discovered through the use of our minds. You use your mind to walk, to talk, to see, to feel, to stay alive. The day you stop using your mind is the day you begin destroying yourself.
Emotions ARE NOT a method of cognition, it never has been. Emotions may or may not lead you to truth, but it is purely coincidental.
Following Jesus Christ as your model is ACTUALLY A GOOD THING. He promoted the basics of a principled life. I just disagree with his selflessness.
My question to you Justus (and all may answer):
What are your axiomatic concepts in your philosophy? Describe them for me in FULL DETAIL please, if you are able to.
Dude, awesome second line to the title of this post. The Beastie Boys would be proud. That is all.
Professor, are you defining axiomatic concept as a principle that cannot be reduce to components? (I pulled that definition from the internet).
Would you mind providing an example of one of yours to make sure I am thinking along the same track, and maybe a principle that is not an axiomatic concept?
TJ, no problem.
According to Objectivism, the one irreducible fact in which everything is based on is: Existence exists. Simply stated, existence refers to everything that has existed, everything that exists, and everything that will exist. This is an irreducible concept that is the basis and foundation of everything else. Before considering any other issue to discuss, one must agree that "existence exists." It doesn't say EXACTLY WHAT exists, but that SOMETHING exists. If we do not agree to this, then there is no reason to keep discussing axiomatic concepts.
I hope this example helps, TJ.
What principle is not an axiomatic concept? Wow! There are so many. This is not the best example, but try this one: One cannot know everything, therefore one knows nothing (Cartesian Knowledge hypothesis). This axiomatic concept, as expressed by some philosophers, basically states that if you have knowledge of something, then you must have FULL knowledge of it, or you have to say you don't know.
(Did this poor example help?)
Professor, gong back to the fundamental difference that I accept God's revelation (principally the Biblical scriptures) as a source and a starting point for truth, our axioms can not be compared side by side. Either I am cheating by using truth that does not conform to your definition, or you are cheating by dividing my resources for truth in half. Which you care to continue, and if so, who is allowed to cheat?
You are right, Justus. Our axiomatic concepts differ so much so that we cannot continue this discussion.
As for "cheating," no one can cheat reality. Reality simply is. It does not conform to our wishes, desires, hopes, dreams, whims, or incantations. If one can't get passed this axiom, then one cannot proceed in any discussion about reality. The concept that existence exists has a built-in protection against all attacks. The concept MUST BE USED by the attackers in order to attack it! One cannot say that something is and is not at the same (law of non-contradiction). Yet those who attack the axiomatic concept of "existence exists" have to use it in order to say it does not exist. And you should hear these pseudo-philosophers try to explain it away (Kant, Hume, Kierkegaard, Hobbes, and Plato)! It is almost ridiculous that some people actually studied these thinkers in an academic setting!
I don't think we need to end the discussion necessarily, I will just limit the scope of the discussion.
You may want to explain how philosophers long dead before Rand coined "Existence exists" attempted to explain it away, but that is irrelevant. Existence exists. Sure. And?
I could give you my objection to using such a phrase as the basis of a philosophy, but I will allow a much smarter man than myself, and a former objectevist, to make the points for me:
(http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/05/yes_virginia_ex.html)
Actually, I agree with her that the statement is irrefutably true. "Existence exists" is a tautology, just like "All bachelors are unmarried" or "Two plus two equals four." Given the meaning of the terms, the truth of the statement follows ineluctably.
But this is a mere verbal conceit. It does not tell us anything useful about the nature of reality.
To see why, note that any number of philosophers of competing traditions would readily agree with the idea that existence exists. A Thomist, for instance -- a follower of Thomas Aquinas -- would certainly agree that existence exists, but he would define existence as including God and the whole supernatural realm. On the other hand, an atheist would also agree that existence exists, but he would define existence as meaning only the space-time universe that we perceive with our senses.
That both the Thomist and the atheist would agree on the premise, yet come to radically different conclusions, merely shows that they would interpret or define the premise differently. The word "existence" is so all-encompassing and so vague that anyone can define it pretty much any way he wants. Therefore it means almost nothing and can be used to prove almost anything.
What Objectivists do -- and I'm not suggesting they do it intentionally; in fact, I believe most of them are very much unaware of it, just as I was -- is to implicitly define "existence" as meaning only the physical reality that we inhabit. The fact that this is not the only possible definition eludes them because their atheistic-materialistic assumptions are so deeply rooted as to be taken for granted. It is not that Objectivists deliberately equivocate on the meaning of the term "existence"; it simply does not occur to them that the word could have a wider meaning than the one they ascribe to it.
But if "existence exists" means that the physical universe is the only reality, then the statement ceases to be axiomatic and self-evident. The great majority of people throughout history, after all, have held precisely the opposite view -- so if someone is going to maintain this position, he is obliged to provide detailed arguments and empirical evidence in its support. But a proposition requiring argument and evidence is not a self-evident axiom and cannot be a fundamental starting point of a system of thought.
So Objectivists are in a quandary. They can define "Existence exists" in the broadest terms, in which case the statement is truly axiomatic but doesn't mean very much and can be used to support virtually any set of conclusions. Or they can define "Existence exists" much more narrowly, so as to rule out any supernatural existence, but then they can no longer claim that the proposition is axiomatic, since it must rest on a sophisticated defense of materialism.
What they're not entitled to do is claim that the proposition is a self-evident axiom even while defining it in terms that require a detailed defense.
And this is why it's not possible to rationalistically derive a philosophy of life from first principles. If the first principles are so vague as to be truly axiomatic and tautological, they will not lead to any clear-cut conclusions. If the first principles are narrower and more meaningful, then they will not be self-evident and will really not be first principles at all.
And professor, I hope my tone is acceptable, and apologize if I offended. I was joking in my use of the term "cheating" and am genuinely interested in learning your position. I see some truth in the Objectivist philosophy, but if there is more there than I see currently, I look forward to your help.
Justus, there is no possible way to offend me. Only Lumbee can do that because he knows me so well personally. So, please, if I may, I will ask you to be yourself, your passionate, intellectual, and emotional self at all times around me. That way there is no hiding.
You said:
"What Objectivists do -- and I'm not suggesting they do it intentionally; in fact, I believe most of them are very much unaware of it, just as I was -- is to implicitly define "existence" as meaning only the physical reality that we inhabit."
Big issues with this statement:
1. You said that "most" of them are very much unaware of it. How many Objectivists do you know? How many are there in total and then take the amount you happen to come across and let me know if this is more than 50%. If you do not know more than 50% of Objectivists, then please rescind this statement. Say "I know a few" or "I've encountered a handful of..." That sounds more true than "most Objectivists."
2. You stated that we DEFINE existence as the physical world. Does "justice" exist? Does "love"? Where exactly are those CONCEPTS in the PHYSICAL world? Do not confuse the metaphysically given with the man-made. This is, perhaps, where you have begun building this straw-man Objectivism and then dissemble it. Please make sure that when you speak about Objectivism and its definitions that you are actually quoting from noted authors such as Ms. Ayn Rand, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. Onkar Ghate, and Dr. Peikoff, just to name a few.
Please see page 5 of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (OPAR, hereafter) to get a full definition of what is meant by "existence."
But for those of you who do not have the text, or really care to buy it right with your urgent purchase of Michael Jackson's "Thriller", here is the shortened version:
"The concept of 'existence' is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything--every entity, action, attribute, relationship (including every state of consciousness)--everything that is, was, or will be."
(I don't think you know exactly how wide this concept is; clearly it is much wider than you assume Objectivists claim it to be.) Continued...
You said:
"So Objectivists are in a quandary. They can define "Existence exists" in the broadest terms, in which case the statement is truly axiomatic but doesn't mean very much and can be used to support virtually any set of conclusions. Or they can define "Existence exists" much more narrowly, so as to rule out any supernatural existence, but then they can no longer claim that the proposition is axiomatic, since it must rest on a sophisticated defense of materialism."
Even bigger issues with this statement.
1. Either the axiom is too large or too narrow. Again, the straw-man appears. If an axiom is an IRREDUCIBLE fact, then it can't be too large, too small, or too anything. It is just right. I will agree that is A WIDE RANGING concept, but not "TOO" anything. Why? Because it is true, that is, it is consistent with reality, despite our wishes, dreams, hopes, and feelings.
2. You said it is too large and therefore can be used to support any set of conclusions--YES, so long as it is consistent with REALITY. Once the conclusion--or the path to it--is inconsistent with floating abstractions not grounded to anything in reality, then THAT is what makes it a statement false. Why do you think we hold paranoid schizophrenics in custody? A is A; A cannot be non-A. Reality is. We hold paranoid schizophrenics in custody not because we don't believe what they see, I believe that they believe they see those things. But that doesn't make their visions a part of nature in the actual real world--that's why we called it visions/imaginations/hallucinations. Just ask John Forbes Nash, Jr. from the movie "A Beautiful Mind" (Of course, there is a second axiomatic concept that goes along with the first axiom, but that's for a later debate once we have either agreed or disagreed with "existence exists.")
3. "So as to rule out any supernatural existence." Sorry, Justus, I don't debate this part with you or other devout Christians/Jews/Muslims/ or any other believers of a deity. You believe, just as Lumbee, TJ, and others do too. That's all I need to know, and that's all there is to be said. Is that cool?
But I will debate your claim of Objectivists being a "sophisticated" form of "Materialism."
Again, you are not too well versed on Objectivist thought to know that Objectivism OUTRIGHT REJECTS materialism. You will need to read pages 30, 33-35 in OPAR. There is a clear distinction between Objectivism and Materialism as proposed by Democritus, Hobbes, Marx, and Skinner. Please, by all means, Justus, read Objectivist positions on various matters before writing falsehoods about them on this post. It will save us some time by cutting out all the errors (mistaken or intentional) you may make in your assumptions. (Just look at how much I had to devote to clearing the fog on these assumptions.)
Guys, if this debate is too boring, just know that I won't be offended if we all choose to move on to another matter. Perhaps capitalism or music.
Professor, you may be interested to visit the link from which I pulled those statements. It is listed in the previous comment. Yes, the writer was drawing on anecdote and could certainly have further qualified his statement, but he was a former Objectivist proponent, so is much better connected and read regarding other Objectevists. You will also see several Objectivist writers and supporters in the comments section agree with several parts of his position.
I would also point to you to this post, where a professional philosopher disects the problems inherent with the "classical" interpretation of "Existence exists" as stated by Rand and explained by Peikoff, who I see on your approved reading list: http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/05/is-ayn-rand-good-philosopher.html#comments
Now, just between me and you. If I understand your comments correctly, you would interpret "Existence exists" as axiomatically true since it can support any conclusions that are consistent with REALITY. For you this would include the concepts of "love" and "justice" since these concepts are part of your reality. Please let me know if I am on track so far.
Justus,
There is no "interpreting" the fact that existence exists. It simply is. No interpretation, no consciousness needed for that fact to be true. So in that sense, any interpretation by anyone of the fact that "existence exists" is unnecessary. It simply is.
The axiomatic concept must be consistently applied in any and all statements claimed to be true. That does not necessarily mean that one simply states it along with their conclusion and it makes the claim true, e.g., "Existence exists, and therefore pink elephants give birth to two donkeys." That is not the way it works. What it entails is that in any claim of fact made by any being, there must be evidence based on and grounded in reality, based in the fact that existence exists. Not my reality, not your reality, but simply reality.
There is only one reality (Aristotle). If you claim to know or to be aware of another reality different from ACTUAL reality, then you must provide evidence as such BY USING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF REALITY. You cannot use evidence in one reality to show proof of evidence in another reality--as a matter of fact, you would have to use evidence in YOUR INTERPRETED REALITY, which does not exist. Furthermore, stating claims such as "your reality" or "my reality" is dependent on the observer. This concludes that your cognitive faculty has primacy over reality, when the exact opposite is true: EXISTENCE has primacy over consciousness. Existence is not some malleable universe in which you can change rules and nature at will. Your consciousness can only PERCEIVE existence as it is, not as you would like for it to be. And we have now reached the second axiom of Objectivism: You exist possessing CONSCIOUSNESS. This does not mean that existence is contingent upon your awareness of it, a world without conscious being is possible. This axiom is stating that you are AWARE of something. (This is exactly the inverse of what Descartes claimed--I think, therefore I am. Objectivists say: I am, therefore I think. Can you see the difference?)
So here is the breakdown so far:
1. Existence exists (axiom 1)
2. Something exists and I am aware of that. (axiom 2)
There is a third and final axiom, but we are not there yet.
So in response to your last paragraph in your last entry, reword it to say as such: Existence exists. The professor exists and therefore is aware (he perceives) that something exists. The concepts of love and justice do exist in reality and existence, but not because I see it that way, but because it actually exists despite my wishes, dreams, hopes, fears, and incantations. A is A.
"Love" and "justice" are respectively part of Politics and Ethics branches of philosophy. We are not there yet. We have barely gotten past metaphysical axiomatic concepts.
You could never go wrong if it is written or stated by Ms. Rand or Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Stay away from "former" Objectivists. Clearly they may have lead you astray (such as when you claimed Objectivism to be a sophisticated form of Materialism). I would never consult with Cat Stevens to learn more about Christianity (he has converted to Islam). I would call on Lumbee and his minister for such information.
On a side note:
Are you agreeing with these axioms so far? Or do you need more explanation?
Axiomatic concepts:
1. Existence exists
2. You exist possessing consciousness--to be conscious is to be conscious of something.
3. The law of identity. A is A. To be is to be SOMETHING, to have a nature, to possess IDENTITY.
Is anyone else taking a crack at these concepts? I understand if this is not your cup of tea.
Professor,
I feel like we are getting lost in syntax and linguistics more than discussing philosophy, but I assure I have a point, I only wanted to be clear of yours.
Let's start with Aristotle, since I think the law of identity is clearer.
"There is only one reality. A=A."
Before we go any further, I want to agree on a definition of reality, as the word itself can have multiple meanings. In the sense Aristotle used the word reality, I take the word to mean simply that which is real, true, or genuine. In other words, regardless of what we may or may not want, or may or may not believe, or what we may or not experience, the physical and metaphysical are what they are.
It seems we agree so far. Correct?
If so, we can continue, and I can explain my intention in using the term "your" reality.
So far so good.
Continue with your next item.
(Definitions are important to me because I take EACH AND EVERY WORD you use at FACE VALUE. Always keep that in mind.)
I am enjoying this discussion. At this point, I don't feel the need to step in, but I may later. Just wanted to let you know I am following.
Also, I had to post to receive your comments on the blackberry, so that is the second reason for my interjection. My reality consists of a lot of baby feeding and rocking, so sometimes I enjoy reading this blog at 3:00 am.
TJ, you are enjoying the best days of your life, brother!
Congrats on your child, that kid is going to be in good hands with you around.
Thanks, Professor!
OK, so the next step, which I also believe we agree on , is that humans are real, sentient beings with consciousness, or awareness, capable of knowledge.
After that, I would define knowledge that which humans understand about reality. I would add that human understanding of Reality is not complete.
Perhaps an appropriate summary would be that reality exists, and Humans can act, experience, and gain knowledge in ways allowed by their identity to understand reality.
As an aside, That personal body of knowledge, brought by unique experiences, is another accepted definition for reality, and is in the spirit I earlier mentioned your reality. In this sense, my "slice of reality" does not include knowledge of the truths of quantum chemistry, they are nevertheless part of ultimate reality. "Your reality" may affirm the existence of concepts including "Love" and "Justice" that individuals labeled as sociopaths may not. That is all.
So back to the main discussion, if we agree, we may agree on the basic tenets of little "o" objectivist philosophy, I just don't buy Rand's (and Piekoff's) big "O" Objectivism, specifically on their ethics, and for their adherence to atheism as a statement of truth.
On the existence of God, you already mentioned you did not want to discuss, and I prefer not to begin an argument in apologetics either. I will only say that the cosmological argument is problematic for Objectivists to refute without borrowing concepts from conflicting philosophies.
On the matter of ethics, I have hit the highlights in the original post. Again, I painted with a broad brush, but since you brought about your disagreement with respect to the selflessness of Jesus, I will say a few words on that matter.
Objectivism reduces right and wrong down to those things which do or don't promote personal survival and existence, with notable Rand quotes being "valuing nothing higher than itsef," "altruism is suicide."
I believe a rejection of altruism is a rejection of human nature and of what I contend a higher moral purpose for life. I would suggest compassion and self-sacrifice are a part of human identity closely linked to justice. If someone witnesses an unjust act, they may be moved to act in an attempt to bring some form of justice, often at some level of sacrifice to themselves.
Interestingly enough, throughout history, when altruism is witnessed the recorded reaction tends to be admiration, not cynicism or disgust. Cynical arguments with respect to kinship altruism, reciprocal altruism, and pure selflessness are rare, limited and unconvincing in the history of philosophical thought.
You have donated your valuable time to correct the perceived 'wrong' thoughts of a total stranger (me). Perhaps I unjustly characterized Objectivist positions. I sincerely appreciate you for your time and consideration in helping me understand your position, whether or not you you have more valuable options or are driven by selfish motives.
Selfishness has been treated as a pejorative term throughout history. But let's look at what it actually means to be selfish.
Selfish is defined as "concerned with only oneself" (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, p. 754). Guess what? EVERYONE IS SELFISH. In every single act one does, they always act selfishly. When you choose your clothing, you are being selfish. When you choose what to eat, you are being selfish. When you choose what job you want, girlfriend, spouse, you are being selfish. In every single act you perform, you are being selfish.
Those aren't bad things I listed, so why does selfishness connotes something so ill-received? Look at the times when someone was acting so-called selfishly and someone else said "you are so selfish!" It wasn't the fact that the person was being selfish was the bad thing, it was that he/she LIED. They evaded reality. A is A. When a man says to another woman "I love you, I want you, you are the best thing that has ever happened to me" then he cheats on her, THAT IS NOT BEING SELFISH, that is LYING. When someone says "you, Mr. President, have been morally wrong in having sexual relations with another woman", he's not really claiming that the President was being SELFISH, but that the President was LYING (insert Vitters, McGreevy, Craig, Hart, Clinton, Sanford, Ensign, et al., they all apply).
Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. I don't think you know what exactly this means. This means that your own wishes, hopes, desires to make yourself happy are all dashed at the whim of another. Another person chooses FOR YOU and COMMANDS YOU to act in a way that pleases the ENFORCER. That's called slavery. How can you fall in love with a person like that? How can one even be friends with a person like that? How can one live a life of selflessness? To make your point even clearer, Jesus could only have acted selfishly because he wanted to save everyone. He loved them enough to spread his word to others so that they know how to live a respectful life. That's not selfless, that's selfish--it's exactly what I do in my classroom. I spread truth so that my students can live a productive and rational life. And that is not a sacrifice. Cont...
A sacrifice entails giving up a higher value for a lesser value. A clear example is when my parents wanted me to study business. I wanted to study music. I SACRIFICED my interests and began taking classes in business management. I was a C+ student. When I finally got around to studying what I wanted, I began receiving A's. Then I got scholarships, then I got a job. Now I'm one of the top paid professors in colleges and universities ACROSS THIS STATE. What if I had SACRIFICED my desires and went with business? I would supersizing your fries right about now had I gone that route.
Your description of a selfless act is not really selfless. Someone may WANT TO help someone who needs help-I do it all the time at my campus. Someone who is troubled or lost, I will always give them a few minutes of my time sometimes only to listen. Furthermore, I don't care what it costs me--my life even--but I will protect those I love because I value them as such. I have replayed the image of a terrorist entering my classroom. I know how exactly I will react--and it does not conform with the college's policy. I will give my life for my students because I value them that much. Now you can only imagine what I will do for my nieces, or my brothers, or my friends. I act selfishly because I value people--not all of them.
I wouldn't save Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, Kim Jong Ill, or anyone who wants to kill me. Why? Because I'm selfish. If I were selfless, and I notice that someone is trying to attack Bin Laden, then I would feel compassion for him and try to defend him. Do you see the absurdity in this statement? He wants to kill me, wants me to submit to his god, and wants to enslave my mind, but I will save him because I am selfless. Are you kidding me?
I hope that you are aware of what it truly means to be selfish.
But what if someone's values are reversed? That is, what if what one person values is the enslavement of another? Yes, there are people out there (my father) who see as a value the oppression of others. My father has told me to my face that if he were younger, he would kill lesbians every day of his life. He hates homosexuality and believe that gays ought to be eradicated from this Earth. I asked him if he would feel happy killing people, he said yes. This does not only apply to gays, but he also hates Blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Arabs. He has told me he would feel better if they were either kept in oppression or annihilated altogether. He also hates women who are independent and successful. He says they should do their wifely duties and stay pregnant and at home.
Clearly his values are different than mine. But if selfishness is good, why don't we let him do as he pleases? I refer to the Obama on Iran blog in which I describe what is good and evil.
Objectivism supports RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST. This is a type of selfishness guided only by reason, not whims, emotions, and feelings. It is the implementation of the mind with full focus, not giving into emotionalism. This is acting in such a way that each and every value you attain will better you as a person--not for the sake of others, but for ONE'S OWN sake. It means that in every act, you use reason to trade consensually with others, value for value, not by enslaving them. It means to reach happiness right here, right now, in this world, not in the afterlife. It means to uphold ONE'S OWN LIFE as the ultimate value and the ultimate virtue being one's happiness. It means to use reason in order to achieve LONG RANGE goals, to which all short range goals are directed. This is how I live my life EVERY SINGLE DAY, EVERY WAKING HOUR, MINUTE and SECOND. I wasn't always this way, but I'm sure as hell happier that I am now. (Ask Lumbee, he will tell you who I was and who I now am.)
Are the dishes done with this discussion, Justus? I think we have both expressed what ethics we follow, and what values are to each of us. Clearly we have different views. What's next?
Professor, I have some questions about your comments, and plan to respond; there are a few things that do not seem to support themselves. This is likely because I have either not understood, or you have not gone as in depth as you will (a few paragraphs on a blog can hardly describe one's entire philosophy). Because I think it is important, I am going to devote the amount of time this deserves. If I don't have time tomorrow, I hope to post by the end of the week. You made some interesting, thought provoking, and surprising (to me) comments that I look forward to examining further.
So for me at least a couple dishes still need washing.
-Loathsome
Professor, your description of self-interest seems to have similar qualities as love.
Thanks to Justus for a providing a thought-provoking forum for discussion.
I really enjoyed reading everyone's comments and hope to keep on learning. It's great!
Thanks for reading and commenting, Rebecca.
If you read through the comments on this post, you deserve a gold star or something. I am sure my treasurer "Loathsome" will do something special for you.
Rebecca (if that is your real name). Welcome, and happy birthday.
I got you a dead nutria.
Since we agree that definitions are important and since we need to agree on their meaning to discuss their implications, I am starting there. As a note, the capitalized words were taken from your post.
-Selfish – concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage without regard for others
-Selfless – having no concern for self
-Altruism: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.
By definition this is an opposite to selfish. It uses an antonym to describe the noun, and defines by devotion to instead of the disregarding of the welfare of others.
These are the definitions from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, and match what you put forth as a definition for selfish and altruism. (You did not provide a definition for selfless).
-On the subject of altruism, I don’t think you fully explained your conclusion that “your desires are dashed at the whim of another”. This implies that there is a proactive or controlling action by another that enforces the disregard of your desire. Altruism is defined here without the influence of a second party. To take it at face value, it is the unselfish action towards one’s desires, and the devotion to the welfare of others. I don’t see where any enforcement of a second party is given or implied. Therefore since the subordination of one’s desires is voluntary, it is possible to live a life of altruism, it is the opposite of selfishness, and it is not slavery.
-Also to Rebecca’s point, is there a place for love in Objectivism? Webster’s provides one definition of love as “unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another”. This is a clear contrast to self-interest because by definition it would require you to sometimes put aside your interest for the interest of the one you love.
-Your statement “How can one live a life of selflessness?” implied to me you are saying it is not possible. Are you also saying it is not possible to even commit a selfless act? You never define selflessness, and in my opinion, never give a clear example of it. You said it was not selfless for Christ to give His life. You said it was not selfless for you to give your life for your students. You said it is not selfless for you to help someone in need. You said that all of these things are selfish. You said they are not selfless because you WANT TO help them. If we help others because we want to and that is selfish, then the only time we are selfless is when we don’t want to help, but are forced to help. That is not selfless. That is, as you put it, slavery. By that definition and reasoning a selfless act is impossible.
-“Jesus could have ONLY acted selfishly because he wanted to save everyone”. In your first post, you stated that you disagreed with his selflessness. This appears to be a contradiction to me in your statements. He could not have been both selfish and selfless at the same time.
-“I will protect those I love because I value them” To me this contradicts the definition of rational self-interest as you present it – “acting in such a way that each and every value you attain will better you as a person –not for the sake of others but for ONE’S OWN sake.” And “It means to uphold ONE’S OWN LIFE as the ultimate value”. If these two statements are true, you cannot give your life for your students. It means that you cannot ever do something for someone else unless it betters you; their benefit is irrelevant. So perhaps you can give someone help because selfishly you enjoy it, and it makes you feel better. That fits, but you cannot ever do anything that would harm your growth, your development, or certainly your life, because your life, not corporate life, not human life, but each individual’s own life is ultimate. How do you justify a position that may require the ultimate virtue of “ones’ happiness” to be in conflict with the ultimate value or “one’s own life”? This is to me an apparent conflict and contradiction, and the same conflict would also apply to other lesser situations.
-On a less drastic level, there is nothing I do for my daughter that is for my own sake, or that benefits me. As a matter of fact, many things I do for her don’t even bring me happiness. I change her, I feed her, and I get up in the middle of the night and disturb my sleep. There is no value to myself or to my happiness by doing these things. When I do them, I am giving regard to her needs, I am providing for her welfare, and I concern myself with her not me. By all the definitions I am not selfish. I am unselfish or selfless. My emotion takes precedence over my rational need. She is the selfish one. Everything she does is solely for her advantage. She is “concerned excessively or exclusively with herself… without regard for others”. Obviously I should care for my daughter, but if I am to take rational self-interest and the definitions we discussed seriously and at face value how do I do that without compromise?
Oh, and as it turns out, Professor, I discovered today is your birthday as well.
Objectively, I would like to wish you a selfish and happy birthday!
Seriously, hope you enjoyed it.
(Thanks for the well wishes, brother.)
Loathsome, apparently you are greatly mistaken as to what is selfish and unselfish. As for altruism, the philosopher Auguste Comte first used that word to insinuate that each person has a "duty" to do things for others and that their own self interests should give way to the interests of others. Just as Kant, a contemporary of Comte, also talked about the "duty" of the self to serve others. That's altruism.
I must admit, you got me on the whole Jesus Christ acting selfishly. If he gave up his life for others, then that is unselfish. I disagree with his doing that--but I'm not going to discuss that any further. I simply disagree with that action.
Is there love in Objectivism? ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THIS???? Oh dear!
People listen carefully: LOVE IS THE MOST SELFISH EMOTION YOU CAN HAVE!! I really hope that was clear.
Explanation: No one loves whomever whenever. People only love those with whom they share some sort of value. And the more values the one person has, the more that person is loved by another who appreciates those values. Lumbee doesn't love whomever, he loves Rebecca. He specifically went after her because HE WANTED her. He wasn't being selfless, he was being selfish. And the selfishness is concretized in his happiness. She is the only person in this world who could give him that type of happiness. That's why he went after her.
Loathsome, there is a reason why you married the woman who sleeps next to you every evening. It is because she brings YOU happiness. And conversely, her being happy BRINGS YOU HAPPINESS. That is, you are happy (ultimate goal) when she shows values that you appreciate AND you are happy (ultimate goal) when YOU MAKE HER happy. But what if she begins taking away some of these values. Hmmm, all of a sudden you are not so happy. What if she stops showering (to begin mildly), would you leave her for that disvalue? Perhaps not. But what if she becomes extremely obese AND does not care that she is that way? Another disvalue, but I'm sure you can work it out. Why? Because YOU believe that YOUR happiness can come back if she were to change just a little bit. Heaven forbid--what if she decides to be unfaithful to you? And after discussing this matter, she decides that she will be with a new person AND you at the same time and that's the way it must be. Could you reconcile YOUR HAPPINESS given this extreme situation? (And if you don't think that can happen, talk to Lumbee about my past situation with such a relationship.) Your happiness means that you value certain things and that you obtain these values through others. You obtain these values by your careful selfish selection of friends, jobs, spouse, newspaper, food, and recreation, among other things. And they each have a higher value than another with a measurement tool that only YOU use: YOUR MIND. Continued...
As for sacrificing my life for my loved ones:
Again, this is a most selfish act. I have CHOSEN through my mind to defend my loved ones, even if my life is at stake. If Lumbee gets into a fight at a bar, and I don't jump in, then I guess I don't really love him as much as I pretend to be. I automatically jump in to fight because his well-being is of an extremely high value to me. Is there a chance that our opponent may have a knife, shank, or gun? Sure. Do I care at that point? Not really. I'm not giving up my health, and perhaps my life, because some other person tells me to. I'm giving up my health because he means that much to me. But if there is a chance or a window of opportunity for me to calm the situation by calling the police or bouncers, then I will take that option (I worked at Bullwinkle's for two years--this is exactly the protocol unless you are in immediate danger, then you must "get dirty"). REASON over EMOTION no matter what! I feel the same way for Rebecca--although I really hope that she doesn't get into a knife fight at the bar; she is not the type to do so. My intention is NOT to give up my life, but if that is the result, then so be it. My intention is to keep Lumbee safe because his well being is what makes a difference to me insofar as my SELFISH happiness is concerned. I like to see him happy, it makes me happy (my ultimate goal) to see him happy. Do I love him more than my students? YOU BETTER BELIEVE SO. If one of my students offends him, then I will defend Lumbee, not my student. Do I love Lumbee more than most of my family members? You better believe so! Some of my family members hold no value to me. They don't make me happy, as a matter of fact, they are toxic in my life. Do I love Lumbee more than I love Heather? Sorry, Lumbee, you lose there. She is my ultimate happiness, and her happiness is what will make me happy, because that is my ultimate goal--my happiness. (Side note: Heather and I are not currently together because of each of our career choices.)
In each case above, I gauge what makes ME reach my ultimate goal. Believe it or not, most of you do the same, you just haven't realized it as such.
As for your daughter, ask yourself: Why do you wake up at these hours to feed her and get her to go back to sleep? Why do you lose a value (sleep) in order to please someone else (wife, daughter)? Check your premises: Who/what is the higher value? Are you giving up a higher value for a lower one? Loathsome, you mean to tell me that sleep is MORE OF A VALUE than your daughter and wife? (Please don't answer this questions if you are choosing sleep, LOL) Dude, you know as well as anyone else here, sleep ain't sh*t when it comes to the people we love. I can tell you the COUNTLESS TIMES I've spent on the phone with loved ones speaking about who knows what, into the wee hours of the morning, knowing that I have a full day of work the next day (10-14 hour work day). And then I repeated it the very next night. THAT is how much I love someone. THAT is how much you love your daughter and wife. Sleep, food, short-term mental health, none of that means ANYTHING compared to those I love. (Ask Lumbee about our late-night religious/philosophical talks that lasted into 1 or 2 in the morning, knowing that I had to get up at 5:30am. I am simply selfish. I wanted to know more about Christianity so I gave up sleep for it--for my love of KNOWLEDGE, which I attained through Lumbee, and that's a major value he holds that I appreciate.)
You get the picture?
Eros = romantic and sexual love. The word "erotic" originated from this.
Philos = friendship, affection, brotherly love, a unifying bond that is non-sexual in nature.
Agape = unconditional, selflesss love without sexual implications (especially love that is spiritual in nature) that is volitional and active.
Perhaps you can only experience the first type of love, eros, since that is what you have implied Love to consist of. There exists, however, a strong body of evidence by way of experience throughout recorded history that is enough for most to consider each of these different types of love to be a possible part of reality.
Agape love in particular, means that one looks for and finds the value in someone, whether or not it is shared, and that whenever possible that value is respected and honored. It is not natural, but is a possible choice, and worth the effort.
Professor, since I didn't read your most recent comments before my latest one, I would ask one question. If you were walking down the street and a stranger walking near you had her purse stolen, would you intervene? This person has no value to you. Depending on how you answer, you must know that others in this situation have time and again chosen to intervene. Why?
Defining "selfish" or "rational self-interest" anything that one does because they have interest in the result seems to me a tautology. It does not appear to leave room for distinction between types of action. There can be no wrong or right, just or unjust, benevolence or malevolence. These other labels would only be matters of interpretation after the fact. Anyone who would attempt to be selfless would be guilty of selfishly attempting to do so. The possibility for selflessness is simply defined it out of existence. Clever.
Eros, philos, agape. You forgot Storge and Thelema. We are not Greek, we are American. In Spanish, we use querer (love), amar (love), adorar (adore lovingly). All have a higher level of love, but then again, we are AMERICAN, not Spanish.
Agape is NOT natural? You have just offended all thinkers. Thinking IS natural for humans. It is part of human nature, it's the only way we survive. We use our minds to learn and apply what we learn. We learn about the good, its values and virtues, and we apply it to our lives (ethics). How dare you say it is NOT natural? Some people may not reach a type of higher-level love, but that doesn't mean it is NOT natural.
Purse stolen situation: As my beloved friend LUMBEE has always told me---CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Helping this person is only moral under a specific context. Is "emergency" properly defined? Because we do not have a full story here, I cannot tell you whether it is an emergency or not. How about this context: if I'm teaching a class, and a stranger from a previous class comes in and tells me she lost her purse, I will let her look for it, but I will not stop my lesson, call the security and the cops to perform a full fledged investigation with fingerprints and all. Clearly, this is NOT an emergency.
Your story is "a stranger walking near me" tells me her purse is stolen (even though you did not specify if she actually told me--CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!). But let's say she did. What exactly am I doing walking? Am I walking to another emergency? Maybe Lumbee is getting into a knife fight, in that case, Sorry Lady, my friend is more important than your purse--again, CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT! But let's assume I'm not doing anything particularly important. At the point that she tells me she has had her purse stolen, I will INSTANTLY (and I do mean almost lightning quick thinking here) determine whether I am sacrificing any other higher value in order to help this person. If I'm not sacrificing anything of higher value, then I ask her if she is physically hurt and needs medical attention. If she does not, then I will probe further into her suffering. I may ask questions to see that I'm not supporting a vice, or that she is not the cause of her own plight. But all in all, this is through my GENEROSITY, not OBLIGATION. In a sense, GENEROSITY is not even a VIRTUE. A virtue is the CREATION of a value, not giving it away (Objectivist thought). The point here is that it is selfishness upon which you act, not selflessness. If you believe that you should just give away values, then good for you. You keep doing that. Have a great life with homeless people. Continued...
True story: (There is video proof of this, but I will not divulge the website address due to the fact that it is a pornography site.) A woman is offered money to film a short film with total strangers. She enters a van and proceeds to answer several questions posed by the strangers, as they drive around the city. Soon after, the questions become sexual and she is offered more money to answer questions and perform sexual tasks. She is then offered SEVERAL HUNDRED dollars to have sex with a particular stranger. After all is done, she is passively, sometimes deceptively, coerced into standing outside of the van for whatever reason (smoke a cigarette, to talk, to get a breath of fresh air). The strangers then run back into the van, stealing her purse and money. Would you help her if she told you that her purse was just stolen? And to what extent would you help her once you found out what exactly she did while having her purse stolen? (If you want to see video proof of this, then I will only tell you in private. You will have to call me on my phone--Lumbee/Rebecca have my number.)
Your last statement says that rational self-interest is tautologous and there cannot be no right or wrong, bad or good. Again, go back to the discussion about Obama on Iran in which I lay out what is good and what is evil. Reread it if you have to, or perhaps it would help if you simply tattoo it under your eyelids. There is such a thing as good and evil. AND IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION.
Professor, you are clearly committed to your views, so I will try not to provoke or further engage you in this post, only offer a couple brief explanations for the benfit of others.
First, Agape is by definition selfless. So you agree that agape exists, and that it is a higher order of love, and that some people may not reach this higher lever, but that it is completely natural. There are so many inherent contradictions here, but I will leave it alone except for to say that perhaps I would have been clearer if I had said that agape does not come without effort.
Second, the scenario requires only as much context as you need to avoid answering the question. I intended the question with the assumption of ceteris paribus - the scenario is simple, someone is out for a leisurely stroll, and a stranger next to them has a purse snatched from her arm by someone know running down the block.
Generosity is certainly is a virtue, as it creates value not only to the recipient, but can create a valuable bond between giver and recipient. I do applaud the mental gymnastics required to separate generosity from selflessness, since in English anyhow, they are considered synonymous with benevolence:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/ROGET.sh.old?word=Benevolence
And I don't like tattoos, especially those that don't make sense to me.
Yep, you are right, we both disagree.
Professor, you explained your position well, and I knew you would explain your thoughts on love and objectivism, I just hadn't heard it yet. I still have two points that need clarification.
First, you gave two examples of people giving their lives. In each case the person gave their life willingly for people they love. You called one selfish, and called one unselfish. I haven't seen the difference in the two situations yet.
Second is in the next comment...
Second, you clearly understand love, and you clearly love. However, you have not convinced me that love is selfish. You said I did not understand what it means to be selfish and unselfish. I am going to push that back on you. First, let's start from the beginning as you have done before. If I understand selfish and unselfish to be the following, am I correct? (based on Webster's)
--Selfish – concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage without regard for others
-Unselfish - "not selfish" by definition is the opposite of selfish. That is what the prefix -un means... not selfish.
We can discuss later if unselfish and selfless are the same.
I am also going to define love from Webster's.
-Love - unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another
If these definitions are correct, love is not selfish because it cannot be both selfish and unselfish at the same time. If these definitions are not correct, we should agree on what the words mean and proceed from there.
Loathsome, I think you misunderstood or misread my stories. I reread all stories (my fighting for Lumbee, Lumbee's love for Rebecca, your love for your daughter/wife, my love for Heather) and all are selfish acts. That is, the person acting is acting selfishly because their own happiness is somewhat and to a greater degree dependent on the ones they love deeply. We all choose these people in our lives because they gives us a happiness that not everyone can give us. And our happiness is--or at least ought to be--our ultimate goal.
Selfless only refers to someone who is generous enough to give away values/virtues rather than create them. As I explained above, generosity is OK, but it is not a virtue. You can't live a productive life being generous 24/7. No one can rightfully claim with evidence that Mother Theresa was more virtuous than Bill Gates. Furthermore, a selfless person cannot possibly love. A selfless person--who has no concern for the self, but rather for others--will simply seek someone who is in need of the selfless person, whose motivation is self-sacrificial pity on the needy person. Again, think about why you love your wife and certain friends and family members. In each and every case, you are being selfish in that you choose those people to remain in your life so long as they have the values you selfishly want from them in order for YOU to be happy in your life. Once they take away those major values, you will begin to reconsider whether you want them in your life.
And what kind of people do selfless people seek? SELFISH PEOPLE. A selfless person who has concerns only for others cannot live with another person who has concerns for others also. Think about it, it's a contradictory relationship. Selfless Person A says, "What do you want to do tonight? I'll do whatever you want." And Selfless Person B says, "I'll do whatever you want. You choose." You can take it from there and imagine how long they will debate as to what to do that evening--they may not even go out at all. The funny thing is that we have all experienced this in some form or other when we first started dating the person we really liked. Remember? And you couldn't decide whether to do what you wanted or what they wanted, because you were afraid of coming across as selfish or not caring and inconsiderate for what the other person wanted. Trust me, I've been through this millions of times, LOL.
Altruistic actions arise when person A gives up all selfish concerns for the concerns of person B. A person who is altruistic will eventually destroy themselves. And I can give you TONS of examples of this.
Webster's definition of love is clearly incorrect after I laid out the philosophical meaning of love, the TRUE concept of love. (Unfortunately, we do not have the authors of Webster's on hand to defend their definition.) It is possible for a dictionary to have a wrong definition, only that the person claiming a different definition MUST PROVE IT, just like I did above. I also disagree with the definition of "arrogance." It comes from the latin "arrogare" which means "to claim for oneself." Arrogance is not a pejorative term, it is actually a positive term. There is nothing wrong in claiming something for oneself. I AM arrogant.
TJ, why don't you call me? It's very tough to write out the concept of love. It is just too vast.
Ask Lumbee or Rebecca for my number. We could even have a conference call.
I'll be in Tally in the early part of August. If you are around, I would love to hang out with you and the rest of the family.
Professor, I do have some additional thoughts to share, but just haven't had time recently. I will try to catch up with you when I can.
Post a Comment