Posted on 01/18/2010 4:32:02 PM PST by El Gringo
Mission accomplished. That's academic Plato.
Put another way, there is a moral imperative to be the means to their ends. It's such a fundamental contradiction of Rand's central thesis that we pretty much have to discount her claims more generally.
“one CANNOT justify the sacrifice and effort required to raise a family from reason alone”
Sorry, I do not agree with you, and either did Ayn Rand. I rationally justified all that had to be done to raise a family, and did it. It was NO sacrifice.
If you think the time and effort, the tears and torment, and there is that, is a sacrifice, if your wife and children aren’t worth ten times the cost, if you consider those things a “sacrifice,” you should not have children.
I find those people who believe they’re doing something noble and sacrificial to raise a family (and frequently they are the kind who throw it up in their children’s faces) are despicable. Your love for you wife and family make no price too high to have, to nourish, to enjoy, to tend their every need. What kind of parent considers that a sacrifice?
I pity your family.
I’m not an Objectivist, by the way, but I do get tired of all the lies told about Rand.
For example: “Rand’s novels contain no CHILDREN! And no mention of family life.”
You apparently have never read Rand, or you are a very poor reader. Atlas Shrugged discusses two families, and one family with children, boys, 4 and 7, lived in Galt’s gulch. Dagny talks to the mother, who also happens to own a bakery, about raising and teaching her children. Her husband is a lineman.
What kind of “family” man are you, who repeats lies like that? Do you teach your children to do that too.
Hank
I had to look. It's been a long time since I read the book.
Yes, briefly it seems. There is one index reference to a place where Popper is quoted favorably.
ML/NJ
I'm flattered that you remember me.
ML/NJ
“Individualism is the opposite of dependency, not collectivism.”
I think your quibble is more semantic than philosophical. Rand regarded “independence” the nature of individualism:
“Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.” [For the New Intellectual,—The Fountainhead, “The Soul Of An Individualist”]
But collectivism is anything that is put above the individual and to which an individual is subordinated, whether it is a state, a society, a neighborhood, a club or a church. If individualism is not the opposite of collectivism, what is?
Collectivism does not have to be forced on people. Many people willing surrender their individualism and independence for the bowl of mush called security, for example.
Hank
You write:
I rationally justified all that had to be done to raise a family, and did it. It was NO sacrifice.
My point is, you would have done it anyway, even if you had never studied philosophy, science or logic. You would have done it out of LOVE, a natural aspect of your soul. The rational justification you tout came after the fact. Apart from love of others, romantic, familial and philanthropic, the world would indeed be a much worse place. We have enough social psychopaths as it is. But fortunately, we have a Divine heritage that is active in most people. The manifestation of that love is what is commonly called 'decency'. Blaise Pascal wrote, "The heart hath reasons that reason knows not of."
And so does yours, Hank, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
To look into one's heart and understand that force and fraud are not acceptable ways of getting by is to acknowledge the existence of a Moral Whole of which each of us are parts. The fact that this is perfectly compatible with reason is no criticism of moral obligation, and does not prove that it is derived solely from reason.
I still invite you to demonstrate how love is derived from reason alone, or reason supplemented by empirical observation. On the contrary, we come to this life fully equipped with a conscience and an ability to love that is limited only by our preoccupation with trivial pursuits. I am not holding myself up as a moral paragon, we all have our limitations. Nor do I doubt in any way your moral sincerity about your family. However, that was not the question I posed.
huuummmmm I don’t think so. THEY are calling us “teabaggers” because it has a nasty and vulgar meaning. We have called ourselves “teapartiers”. Let’s try to go with that.
Self-sufficiency is the opposite of dependency. Individualism and collectivism are opposing philosophies. Self-sufficiency/dependency are opposing traits of those opposing philosophies.
IMHO.
I don’t believe that in Plato’s day women were eligible to run for office, and Aristotle believed that women were defective males. But I do understand your point in that Plato believed that it was the responsibility of all citizens to serve the state. He believed in a cast system, and that the state should raise the children and not the parents. Plato was a full blown statist.
Please understand, I am writing this strictly as a courteousy, because there may be some sincerity in your question. I do not do this to explain myself—I do not explain to anyone.
If you mean by “love” what most people do, some vague, but perhaps intense feeling, that is some causeless “sense” of desire and passion. If so, we have nothing to talk about.
Love is an act or recognition, a recognition of a value in another individual, a value so high all other values are subsumed by it. A rational person can only love one who is worthy of that love. Indescriminate unearned undeserved love is the kind of love given or sold by a whore or a prostitute.
A rational person loves their family because they are the greatest value in the world to him or her. A man or woman who “falls” in love has simply found the one that is so valuable to them, that life without them would not be worth living. The children resulting from that kind of love are both their “work” and their “potential” which it is their personal joy to produce. As in all work, there is the possiblity of disappointment. As in all work, one puts of immediate pleasures for the sake of long-term rewards. These are all rational choices, and if not rational—well just look around you at the disasters most make of the lives and families because they are not rational. Feelings and sentiment can never replace reason.
The entire subject of love is a very big one. If you are sincere, the following are two articles I wrote some time ago now:
“Sex, Love, and Marriage”
http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles7/marriage.html
Ayn Rand, Beauty, Love, and Tenderness
http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles11/gentlelove.html
[In the above you will find one of my disagreements with Rand. I diagree with several things, but there is no need to lie about her. Both articles were written very hurriedly, I’m afraid, and do need editing, which I’ll get to some day.]
As you will see, if you read the articles, true romantic love is not even possible without rational objective values.
Now you never responded to the lie about Rand’s books not having children in them. I think you ought to at least be honest enough to do that.
Hank
:O) that gave me a chuckle.....
I was in the process of editing my second post to you covering that precise matter, when the FR server went down for me.
To resume my post:
I pity your family.
You know nothing of my family. Thus your insult is driven by something less than reason.
You apparently have never read Rand...
I have read The Fountainhead, and found the leading characters are not preoccupied with family or children. I read only the first 1/3 of Atlas Shrugged, therefore I apologize for missing out of the discussion of children toward the end. It doesn't change my critique though. Children are not given much of a role in her novels. And she didn't have any herself with her 'ideal' man, who was far short of the 'ideal' men she writes about. Her novels are in an ideal universe bearing little relation to reality.
but I do get tired of all the lies told about Rand.
What kind of “family” man are you, who repeats lies like that?
Again, you resort to insults when I merely asked you to demonstrate how love, compassion, respect for humanity in general can be deduced from logic and empirical observation alone. You accuse me of deliberate lying, then compound that insult by implying that I am repeating something I have heard. My opinions are my own, as are my mistakes. You also jumped to a false conclusion when you wrote:
"Now you never responded to the lie about Rand’s books not having children in them. I think you ought to at least be honest enough to do that.
Being accused of lying and dishonesty leaves a particularly bad taste in my mouth. Will you next accuse me of making up a story about the server being down and interfering with my intended post? Or will you be honest enough to see your error and make apology for jumping to unwarranted conclusions? If not, then we can have no further productive discussion, merely a trading of insults, which I will not engage in. If I have insulted you (as distinguished from criticizing you, however harshly), please point it out to me. I never intend my posts to others to become a war of insults.
Finally, (and I know I repeat myself) you still have not addressed the initial question in my first post to you! You are evasive in the least, but I will not label you 'dishonest' or a 'liar'. I respect you for your good qualities and forgive the negative ones. God knows we all have plenty of them ourselves.
You can be a hermit, and still live off of welfare checks.
You might. The rest of us, including my 6 year old daughter, catch on rather quickly.
Rand is writing about men in society.
“Of course, Individualism doesn’t mean isolation, aloofness or escaping to a desert island. In fact, only true Individualists are fit to associate with other men. But they do it only on the basis of the recognition of each man’s essential independence: each man lives primarily for, by and through himself and recognizes the same right in others; all relations among men are secondary; men are legally and morally free to associate together or not, on any particular occasion, as their personal interests dictate. There is the pattern of a free, moral society, of human cooperation, and of benevolence among men. [The Letters of Ayn Rand, We The Living to The Fountainhead (1931-1943), November 3, 1946]
“The egoist in the absolute sense ... is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.” [For the New Intellectual,—The Fountainhead, “The Soul Of An Individualist”]
For example.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.