tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post4212867671489137350..comments2024-01-23T17:14:04.067-05:00Comments on Jaltcoh: The time-management theory of appreciating art and thoughtJohn Althouse Cohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-3229549019509848262009-06-05T20:19:34.304-04:002009-06-05T20:19:34.304-04:00LemmusLemmus, certainly. I myself don't agree...LemmusLemmus, certainly. I myself don't agree with Rand, but she did her part for humanity and I hate to see her being ill used, without someone coming to her aid. <br /><br />I wish we could spend more time trying to find what wisdom can be salvaged from the past and less trying to expose its flaws.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-74246209073685357002009-06-05T14:03:26.032-04:002009-06-05T14:03:26.032-04:00In that case, maybe it's best if we agree to d...In that case, maybe it's best if we agree to disagree.LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-29148790242057062752009-06-05T08:29:31.971-04:002009-06-05T08:29:31.971-04:00LemmusLemmus, Unfortunately, the Ayn Rand Institut...LemmusLemmus, Unfortunately, the Ayn Rand Institute has it <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics" rel="nofollow">posted online</a>, so yes, I did have to.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-11042765352843030372009-06-05T01:51:41.961-04:002009-06-05T01:51:41.961-04:00Jason, have you actually read the essay?Jason, have you actually read the essay?LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-48506620636779674992009-06-04T16:57:42.141-04:002009-06-04T16:57:42.141-04:00LemmusLemmus, I understood what you were saying. ...LemmusLemmus, I understood what you were saying. As I saw it, it was just a case where you had to have access to a radically different world view to make sense of what she was talking about.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-99580750465478082009-06-04T16:47:10.940-04:002009-06-04T16:47:10.940-04:00JAC, I think David Brooks was talking about a rela...JAC, I think David Brooks was talking about a related topic, but not mine and not well. I would trace my ideas to Nietzsche, and since Rand was also influenced by him, perhaps that's why I don't find what she's talking about problematic.<br /><br />As far as Brooks goes, Nietzsche talked about the relationship between evolution and thinking, so I thought it funny the way he made it sound like it was a new thing to combine the two.<br /><br />Also, Brooks titled his article "The End of Philosophy" but I recently read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Anathem-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0061474096/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244146818&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">a book</a> where the author used the idea of our thinking being shaped by evolution to argue for the existence of Platonic ideals.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-16835123529124125772009-06-04T14:30:46.474-04:002009-06-04T14:30:46.474-04:00(What I said above implies that I did not try to r...(What I said above implies that I did <i>not</i> try to refute Ayn Rand's philosophy <i>as a whole</i>; most of it I don't know.)LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-31320656362720827502009-06-04T14:14:52.294-04:002009-06-04T14:14:52.294-04:00Jason: In that case, it seems like you're maki...Jason: In that case, it seems like you're making a similar argument to David Brooks's, <a href="http://jaltcoh.blogspot.com/2009/04/david-brooks-on-moral-reasoning-vs.html" rel="nofollow">which I responded to in this post.</a>John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-15514895828993865822009-06-04T14:08:19.151-04:002009-06-04T14:08:19.151-04:00Jason, the essay I wrote about (and, as was clear ...Jason, the essay I wrote about (and, as was clear even from the bit JAC quoted, I have not read or meant to comment on any of her other work) is called "The Objectivist Ethics".LemmusLemmushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00917054221547240969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-84729538969876652192009-06-04T13:40:14.398-04:002009-06-04T13:40:14.398-04:00JAC : But they're not just decoration.
Aesthe...JAC : <i>But they're not just decoration.<br /><br /></i>Aesthetics isn't just about decoration, it's about taste and judgment. When we come to problems we can't or don't know the answer to (that are wide-open to debate) we often rely on these things to make decisions. Look at Ockham's razor as it was first conceived.<br /><br />I think Rand was aware of a certain sensuality that underlies all our decision making. Maybe you guys <i>should</i> go pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Hopefully she's better at describing it than me!Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-15057582130853350942009-06-04T12:07:07.069-04:002009-06-04T12:07:07.069-04:00You could style yourself a rational egoist or a ut...<i>You could style yourself a rational egoist or a utilitarian. That is an aesthetic choice on your part.<br /><br /></i>Well, clearly we can go back and forth on this all day, but my ethical positions aren't aesthetic -- they're specific substantive positions. I'm not saying I'm <i>right </i>about ethics. Maybe my positions are dead wrong -- that's a wide-open debate. But they're not just decoration. <br /><br />I've noticed that the word "utilitarianism" seems to throw a lot of people off -- or perhaps a better choice of words (aesthetic choice!) would be it <i>sets people off</i>. People hear that word and they start thinking it means something other than ethics, something less dignified than traditional notions of right and wrong, or that it's all about what's "useful" in some superficial way. None of this has anything to do with actual utilitarianism (which, again, is agnostic about whether the doctrine happens to be correct -- there are plenty of reasonable arguments against it).John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-69423129597711285922009-06-04T11:52:11.588-04:002009-06-04T11:52:11.588-04:00JAC : I believe one should try to benefit humanity...JAC : <i>I believe one should try to benefit humanity as a whole (and more!)<br /><br /></i>You could style yourself a rational egoist or a utilitarian. That is an aesthetic choice on your part.<br /><br />Perversely, Rand's philosophy may do more to benefit society than her opponents, but I'm sure she was okay with that.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-30049982952447938272009-06-04T10:30:37.987-04:002009-06-04T10:30:37.987-04:00Utilitarianism is not "an aesthetic choice.&q...Utilitarianism is not "an aesthetic choice." It's a substantive doctrine about ethics, not aesthetics. I believe one should try to benefit humanity as a whole (and more!). Assuming the synposes I've seen are correct, Rand disagreed with the whole idea of altruism. That's a serious substantive debate; these two positions are mutually exclusive, so at least one must be false. You can't just dissolve the whole question through hand-waving.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-57680950965493279612009-06-04T10:16:00.272-04:002009-06-04T10:16:00.272-04:00JAC : If a principle is a good principle, it shoul...JAC : <i>If a principle is a good principle, it should withstand rational scrutiny.<br /><br /></i>I think you misunderstand, just as the blogger does. I will try to explain.<br /><br />Rand : <i>"The basic social principle [of objectivist ethics] is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself"<br /><br /></i>The blogger goes on to say : <i>If we accept that life is an end in itself, by which she means (as is clear from the context) that the preservation of human life must be the one and only aim of ethics<br /><br /></i>This is where you guys are missing the point. Rand is saying that if people can claim humanity is an end in itself SHE will claim each individual as an end in itself. She thinks that the choice of trying to benefit all of humanity is an aesthetic choice on the part of Utilitarians and their logic could be applied just as well to an individual as to all of humanity.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-87727022292538829842009-06-04T09:02:57.419-04:002009-06-04T09:02:57.419-04:00I don't think she should be excused by labelin...I don't think she should be excused by labeling her ideas "principles" rather than "proofs." If a principle is a good principle, it should withstand rational scrutiny.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-4982108895656298832009-06-04T08:58:33.809-04:002009-06-04T08:58:33.809-04:00JAC : Is that ignorant or close-minded of me?
Bot...JAC : <i>Is that ignorant or close-minded of me?<br /><br /></i>Both maybe, but I've read one of her books and don't think you're missing anything.<br /><br />Back in Rand's day, the Communism/Socialism movement had a religious following and she did her part to try and offer an alternative for the 'masses'. Think of Rand less as a philosopher and more as a religious leader, because that was what she was up against.<br /><br />I agree with the blogger you quote, the passage he's talking about does not make sense as a logical statement, but Rand is talking about 'principles' not proofs. She's arguing against Utilitarianism. If Utilitarianism is an aesthetic choice, she would produce one of her own to rival it.<br /> <br />Whatever her philosophical ideas were, they have been overtaken by economics and if I wanted an attack on Socialism I'd turn to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Freedom-Anniversary-Milton-Friedman/dp/0226264211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244119181&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Friedman</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Future-Its-Enemies-Creativity-Enterprise/dp/0684862697/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244119207&sr=1-2" rel="nofollow">Postrel</a>, or even <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Human-Action-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0865976317/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244119233&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">von Mises</a>. But that is the entire history of philosophy, once ideas philosophers think up become practical they get named something else.Jason (the commenter)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16045360562791361484noreply@blogger.com