From http://www.philelmore.com/objectivism/obvslib.htm: Ayn Rand put it this way "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
Well, both Objectivism and Libertarianism are inadequate as philosophies. In part, this is because they do not reasonably deal with the problem of whether or when to emancipate “mind orphans,” i.e., people who have lost their minds, never had independent minds, never reasonably developed their minds, or who have had their minds so rigorously trumped as to surrender their own freedom of thought by simply rationalizing to accept whatever their leaders say in any given moment.
Example: Ghetto kids (age is not the determining factor) who essentially worship the dramatic and fashionable poses of heroes they have bonded to who have access to megaphones. Does it really make reasonable sense to demand “reason” of an infant? Or of someone whose culture has essentially molded them by using techniques common to inducing Stockholm Syndrome? Is it not apparent that a problem with both Objectivism and Libertarianism consists in failures to relate reason to cultural context, i.e., failures to apprehend that neither enlightened reason nor sustainable culture can long endure independent of one another? That is, there may be freedom to advocate one’s superiority over the demise of a worthy culture, but it may not be a very well reasoned application of freedom.
Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism take a particle view of light, but ignore light’s wave/field functions. Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism fail because they try to explicate a complete philosophy by taking only the perspective of parts, without appreciating that each perspective of consciousness has an aspect of being condensate of a more encompassing Field of consciousness. In short, they try to be independent of God, but necessarily fail.
If either Objectivism or Libertarianism made good sense in particular applications, one might expect various defenders to explicate reasoned political platforms and principles for dealing with specific social problems. (If central government should be decentralized, then how much power should states have, and when should the central government disagree when the state government gets too intrusive for the tastes of local libertarians or anarchists? When should freedom and liberty be enforced?) If a philosophy could facilitate governance, one might expect adherents could draw and enforce lines and codes around which society could actually be coaxed or inspired to assimilate. Problem: Has anyone recorded a long sustainable society of Objectivists or Libertarians?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Regarding “A is A”: What does that say? What does it mean to say “existence exists” (or Reality reals, or God gods)? Once one adds a non-trivial aspect or term to “A” (such as A person, A moving event, or A physical structure), “A” will then refer to an assumed identity for such person, moving event, or physical structure -- even though no such identity may be fully known or even knowable, but may be continuously fluxing and changing in quality of relation to context and perspective.
I think there is an absolute, i.e., that which avails me to say things like “A is A.” But merely saying “A” does not define what IT is, either as a noun, verb, or gerund. Yes, IT is what IT is. But more than that, IT relates to us, by availing the ground of our being.
Does that ground of being avail families of particles that function precisely the same in all respects, everywhere? Or are those particles also, necessarily, spread out in the manner of a field? Regardless, when any such particle is manifested to a perspective of consciousness, can any other perspective of consciousness know the quality of that experience of consciousness? Is there any way to show whether the quality of experience of any non-trivial fact is in any essential way necessarily the same to each perspective?
I don’t quite see how it would flow from being conscious that A is A … that reason (bivalent logic), un-tempered with empathy, should therefore be our highest value.
Bivalent logic works well for conceptualizing how to manipulate those aspects of reality which seem indifferent to consciousness. But a wider approach is necessary to appreciate relations among those aspects of reality which are not indifferent to feedback with one’s consciousness. One needs to appreciate people as people, not as mere bundles of matter to be indifferently manipulated.
How does one reason with an infant, as the infant is accumulating information and becoming a different person before one’s very eyes? Well, one reasons via a dance of empathetic feedback, that fine tunes over time in respect of various purposes. The desired result and the path to it evolve, and may well not be solvable in advance based merely on “reason” that is un-tempered with empathy.
Some god people overdo the empathy thing and thereby do bums no favors when they condition bums to remain bums. Some objectivist people overdo the reason thing and forget that nearly everyone, in at least some respects, may have skills not much above the level of an infant. What is intelligent and virtuous may often not consist in either pure machine like reason or pure self sacrificing submission. On those occasions, neither the meme of pure objectivism nor the meme of pure selflessness will be of much worth. Rather, what is needed is identification with a higher purpose, towards which one applies reasoned empathy within a context. That is a meme for a Conserver of Liberty.
From A.T. --
@proudgayconserv, Re “I don't know where people get this notion that only government can solve these problems? Have people ever heard of privately funded social agencies who get their money, voluntarily, from people and businesses who choose to help? From businesses who also benefit from engaging in that charity? Rand absolutely addressed this...it is called voluntary cooperation and no compromise with the evil of collectivism through the government.”
Whoa. No one said only government could solve such problems. Indeed, the point intended was that government should ordinarily leave such solutions to private agencies. However, many private churches are denigrated even as they do so. I’m sure you’ve read of the modern Four Horsemen. I wish there were such a clear line between government and private enterprise. Rand hated cannibal corporations that deal in government pull. However, nowadays, is there any corporation that does not deal in government pull? Is there any private enterprise that is not poisoned with government, both being regulated and seeking to be regulated?
Regarding altruism, Ayn Rand (John Galt) said: “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” Now, one can quibble and say, well, she didn’t quite mean that when it comes to innocents, infants, and unlucky children. But when you do, you bring in train all sorts of nebulous qualifications. When should one be considered an emancipated man? When should age or infirmity or hard luck de-emancipate one? To what extent should any person or voluntary agency seek to be another’s keeper? Is the reason for that only because Ayn Rand said so? Or is the reason because there is a higher connection among us, the source of which is available to the direct empathy and intuition of every intelligently conscious being?
Every actual act, save perhaps one – the act of suicide – belies the verbal act of the person who says he believes there is no purpose and no choice.
Yet, he has still another choice -- to choose to coordinate his actual purposes in respect of one of two main systems of belief: 1) to believe that the coordinating of purposefulness is derivative of nothing but process, i.e., dumb nature; 2) to believe that the coordinating of purposefulness is derivative of a common, higher “person.” i.e., God. i.e., a common Field of consciousness. Fundamentally, is the unfolding of our beingness driven by process or person, nature or character, dumbness or consciousness, predetermination or choice making responsive to feedback among perspectives of a Field of consciousness?
How one chooses to compass one’s moral direction may well be less the result of scientific rationalization or pure thinking than the result of emotion that is informed by the consciously willful integrating of one’s experiences.
Depending on present context and purpose, one may intuit pluses or minuses to either orientation. Is the Author of the unfolding of beingness of the quality of Noun, Verb, or Gerund? If Ayn Rand makes sense when she says “existence exists,” then does reality “real”?
I believe Rand was correct about the mind part, that is, the ideal human mind. She just neglected the field of consciousness. But I don't know of any physical phenomena that entail particles that does not also entail fields. And that, I believe, is the source and reason for empathy, i.e., reasoned empathy.
Randian egoism entails equal trade in values, while egotism (like altruism) entails unequal trade in values.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism: “Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for support of libertarianism or individualist anarchism, although these can also be based on altruistic motivations. These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.” “According to amoralism, there is nothing wrong with egoism, but there is nothing ethical about it. One can simply adopt rational egoism and completely drop morality as a superfluous attribute of the egoism.”
Consider: To whom or to what do admirers of John Galt swear their oaths? Compare Thomas Jefferson: “To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.” Thus, unless addressed in respect of a higher Field of Consciousness, the John Galt oath appears to make no sense.
“Although a successful pursuit of self-interest may be viewed [by an egoist] as a moral victory, it could also be dubbed immoral if it prevents another person from executing what is in his best interests.”
Nicotine peddlers were slowed because of cancer and lawsuits. So campaigns against the recruitment of teen smokers gained traction. But there is no such a disincentive attached to pot. Once pot is completely legalized, the campaign to entice youth will only accelerate. How many potheads will care when the next wave of legalization comes? Libertarianism begets fiends to take advantage of people who think they are too special to be taken advantage of. Mind molding advertisers love that demographic! There's no limit to what you can sell to people who think they are too hip to be taken advantage of. That means crime and victimization, big time. After all, Americans think bigger than most societies and will unleash a whole new underworld. Much of our electorate is already led around by the nose. Legalized pot will add one more nose ring. How much longer will this culture value or defend a representative republic? The siren seduction of the Chinese model calls. Soon, Big Bro will tuck us all in and give us our daily soma.
For an interesting analysis of morality, reasoning from a natural law perspective, not a god revealed perspective, see http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/dennehy_freedom1_nov07.asp.
It points out why lust driven libertarianism does not meet the mark and why we need a monistic ethics philosophy in order to assimilate and preserve a decent civilization. However, given the confused state of our present electorate, it does not offer much hope that we will reach any practical consensus by which to deploy such philosophy.
From: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/dennehy_freedom1_nov07.asp
“Since republican political theory sees the government's role as that of preparing people to acquire the virtues needed for sharing in self-rule, deliberating with other citizens about what the common good is and how it is to be realized, it entertains a formative conception of politics that demands its involvement with the moral virtues and chosen goals of its citizens. In contrast, the past decades have witnessed the greater influence of the procedural politics of liberal political theory, with its commitment to ensuring equal justice for all without any officially expressed concern for its citizens' personal moral state. The differences between the two theories are real, but they are not what they seem. Both denounce the government's unjustified interference in the lives of its citizens, but differ on what constitutes the injustice:”
“… the agent's choice creates the reality, first, by altering the external state of affairs and affecting others, and second, by either strengthening or weakening his or her character. Thus, matching one's will to right desire requires more than merely knowing how one ought to behave.”
“Socrates zeroed in on what makes the actions of even the most successful of immoral people, the tyrant, irrational. Having made his way to the top by lying, cheating, betraying, and murdering, he can only associate with his own kind--liars, cheaters, betrayers, and murderers. His own untrustworthiness condemns him to be surrounded by deputies whom he cannot trust. More relevant, having failed to integrate his appetites and passions with reason, the tyrant is now held in thrall by his own unruly and self-destructive urges (Plato 1992: 249-51).”
“So, there are at least two reasons why Vogler's immoral agent does not act rationally. First, by a career of immoral scheming and choosing, he has sold himself into slavery, riveting his will to the evil rather than the good.
“… etymological roots of "chastity" refer to purity or clarity of vision in matters of sexual behavior. The chaste person is one who sees the other person for what he or she is, a being of dignity for whom appropriate respect and justice are due. In contrast, one who has become enslaved by the vice of lust no longer sees the other in a true light. Just as the lion cannot appreciate the stag for its grace and beauty, but only as food, so the lustful person can only see another person as a source of sexual gratification.”
“Thomas Aquinas observed that after one loses the virtue of chastity, thereby succumbing to the vice of lust, the next virtue to be lost is justice, the obligation to pay each his due. That is because vice, being a malignancy, metastasizes. First, there was the sexual revolution, accompanied by the mainstream acceptance of pornography; then legalization of abortion on request; and now the movement to legalize physician-assisted suicide and infanticide (Verhagen & Sauer 2005: 960). The objectification of women as sexual objects has led to the creation of a new social category: a class of disposable people, to wit the unborn, the sickly and deformed, and the elderly.
”The crucial question is, who has the responsibility of inculcating ethics in society? The cackling of the sacred geese warned ancient Rome of impending danger. Where are our geese?”
From A.T.-
Are Libertarian notions about morality principled? Do they have worldwide application? Do they have application to everyone? In every relation? If so, what is the application in relation to people who do not have capacity to engage in equal (or value for value) trading?
If you're expounding a moral principle (i.e., one that that applies to all), then I'm simply asking how you apply it to people who do not have capacity to engage in equal (value for value) trading.
Re: "Morality is that which does not impede the freedom of others nor does it allow others, through their actions, to impede your freedom under Objective, rational law."
Well, I kind of thought morality might pertain to that which helps to guide a person to live a virtuous life, maybe even to sustain a decent country for one’s family, friends, and countrymen, to be a beacon to the world. If so, a moral principle should guide how to preserve the country and its youth, i.e., the next generation for defending the country, i.e., infants and children. It should guide and inspire us to preserve those who give their limbs and health in the service of our country. But I’m not seeing that in your prescription.
However, I do see this: Any group of addicts could get together, tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone else, and just call whatever they do “moral” -- even as they contribute essentially nothing to the preservation of the country or the civilization that allowed them to do that. In that case, one would be only labeling whatever one wanted to do as “moral,” and then, circularly, saying one was moral for doing it.
So, that sort of prescription is reasoning in a circle. The way to break out of that circle is to specify how one's code would apply to help preserve the youth, the infirm, and the vets of a society, country, or civilization.
One may label a prescription as if it were a moral code, but it would not be a code unless it would apply as a principle. If a Libertarian is unable to do that, I understand, as would Jefferson. That is, for dealing with the very issues that a moral code should deal with, the Libertarian formula is nearly the antithesis of a moral prescription. It does not prescribe anything positive; it only prescribes not to hurt others (as any addict may wish to define "hurt"). That is, the code guides how not to encourage able bodied, emancipated persons to become commie bums. But it does not explicate guidance with regard to whether or when members of a society should feel obliged to assist its non-able bodied.
To survive, a nation needs to inculcate bonds of loyalty. To do that, it must avail decent care for the young and the infirm. After all, who would risk life and limb to fight for a country that felt no obligation to provide needed care for its returning wounded? The question is, should that care be provided primarily by voluntary charities or by empire-building governmental bureaucrats? The more we ridicule and deplete church agencies, the more we fill the gap with government. Libertarians want to reduce the role both for government and for religion, and seem often to overlook that a country cannot entirely avoid concern for the keeping of its brothers and sisters when they truly do need help. The viable way to provide that help is not to deplete both government and charities, but to focus on charities that work to restore independence to the extent reasonably possible. The viable way is not to make government itself into a catholic charity, nor is it to leave the young and the infirm to the law of the jungle. Emancipate who you can; care for the young and the infirm as needed in order to bring them to independence; don't neglect the need for the lesson of necessity.
Post a Comment