RoR: Forum

Daniel,

I keep struggling to present my views as clearly as possible, so thanks for another opportunity.

As for the Sures agreeing with me, I think they would. I am reminded of the scene in Atlas in which Rearden acknowledges Frisco's praise of his achievement. I think that they would acknowledge two things: 1) that it took a commitment to constantly learn HOW to think (a matter of KNOWING how and 2) that it took a commitment to constantly apply that knowledge. And I don't think "flattered" is the right word for what they'd feel, I think "gratified" that someone recognized their achievement catches it much better.

What in the world makes you think that they would repeat that stale bromide to the effect that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of god." Would they do that about the home they lived in, the income they produced, the easy grace of their interaction with me? Not bloody likely. Why in the world would they resort to such bromides when complimented on the achievement that made it all possible?

For some reason which I not quite clear about, the commentators on this and other threads where I have posted on this issue, want to conflate the process of staying focused with mistakes in reasoning that can be made even if one stays in focus.

I want to say this: one of the major themes of Atlas is Galt's pointing out, to the people he is recruiting for the strike, that the way they have lived all their lives is the moral way to live -- he provides a confirmation that what they are already doing in the normal course of living their lives is the moral course. Rearden and Dagny are clearly making an error in not joining the strike until the last minute. But it is not an error of morality. Ragnar and Galt have this running argument about whether Ragnar's way of fighting the battle isn't too dangerous. But the error, if any, that either of them makes is not an error of morality.

"Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me" is an error of morality. This contrast, between the heroes of Atlas and James Taggart is the essence of the issue at stake here.

And if you don't know your behind from a syllogism is not the issue. It is not, and if I inadvertently said that is was I apologize profusely for confusing the issues, it is not a matter of "errors of reasoning" (as though being able to memorize and use the standard syllogistic forms were what we are talking about here). Believe it or not you don't have to obsess about being morally perfect to be morally perfect.

Leonard Peikoff has this wonderful quote at the head of his web page: "To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think." If you want to use an old bromide to name the issue, use this: say "I'm only human" and think of John Galt, the man who belonged on earth.

That is why Dagny says, on meeting Galt for the first time, "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we." Thinking isn't a bother, it isn't something to obsess about, it's something to do in order to live on earth. You have to learn how, you have to practice daily, but that's just how you live. And if you do that consistently, on a daily basis -- if you live fully on a daily basis -- if you're turned on to thinking on a daily basis -- you are moral, indeed morally perfect.

Tom Rowland

Post 201

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 7:35pm

Tom,

What a wonderfully inspiring post, this last one of yours!

I wish the term "morally perfect" and the discussion of it were not at issue at all right now.

I would love to take this post completely out of context - indeed it rises by itself.

Beautiful.

Michael

Post 202

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 11:37pm

Tom writes:
>For some reason,,,commentators on this...want to conflate the process of staying focused with mistakes in reasoning that can be made even if one stays in focus..

>...And if you don't know your behind from a syllogism is not the issue. It is not, and if I inadvertently said that is was I apologize profusely for confusing the issues, it is not a matter of "errors of reasoning"...

Well, you did previously say your standard of morality was "the commitment to rational thought in every aspect of one's life on a daily basis" and that "...such a commitment doesn't eliminate errors, *but that it does confine those errors to errors of knowledge*"(emphasis DB).

But obviously this itself was said in error...;-) Fine, then. Really, what you're saying then is that a commitment to *trying* to get things right - with the full acceptance that, being human, we still may not succeed despite our best efforts - is morally commendable. Now, I would fully agree. The decision to be rational - that is, to learn through trial and error, through argument and experience - is indeed a moral one. And the complete refusal to do the same I would certainly regard as immoral (although we all must be dogmatists too from time to time!)

When Robert B talks about "the pressure of moral perfectionism", I think he's talking about what Nathaniel Branden described as a common "hazard" of Objectivism:

"I know a lot of men and women who, in the name of idealism, in the name of lofty beliefs, crucify their bodies, crucify their feelings, and crucify their emotional life, in order to live up to that which they call their values." ("The Benefits and Hazards OTPOAR")

But its clear now that you mean "moral perfection" in a much looser sense, as more of a benevolent figure of speech than a remorseless, implacable standard. So perhaps you and Robert do not disagree as much as you may think.

- Daniel

Post 203

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 7:28am

Daniel,

Thanks again for the opportunity to make another attempt.

1) I said "commitment to rational thought" and you said that I "consider errors in reasoning to be moral errors." What I was attempting to do in #200 was to clarify that "the commitment to rational thought on a daily basis" was NOT "the commitment to never making errors of reasoning." Equating these two is, I think, one of the problems. Some people, accepting that they should think, go around flogging themselves with constant self-deprecation and stultifying fear of thinking because they don't want to commit the "moral error" of Hasty Generalization or Appeal to Ignorance. And if anything should make an Objectivist cringe it is the picture of themselves as some kind of Pilgrim making progress through Ayn Rand's Slough of Logical Fallacies.

2) BUT...at the same time that it is not "the commitment to never making errors of reasoning", the criterion is equally NOT some sort of mushy, watered-down "trying". Paraphrasing YODA, "Think or don't think, there is no try."

3) I think that the quote from Branden only compounds the error, as it stands (i.e. without knowing any more of the context). Instead of denying that Objectivism and living up to its ideals requires "crucifixion", which is what I think I am doing, he says that one of the hazards of the philosophy and of taking it seriously ("idealism," "lofty beliefs," and "living up to that which they call their values") is precisely such flogging. His council, by implication? Don't take it quite so seriously, lighten-up. (There is, by the way, all the difference in the world between Dagny's comment to Galt and Branden's comment to idealistic students of Objectivism.) Furthermore, I want to ask Branden for "cases." I don't mean naming names, I mean showing by actual ("names changed") example that there are people who know and understand Objectivism (i.e. correctly understand Objectivism) and nevertheless crucify themselves. It's been a long time since I've read this article of his, so I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I do want case studies.

Daniel, maybe there are some points of agreement between Robert B. and me. But I'm still not sure that you have gotten what I'm attempting to say. I'm referencing your last paragraph, in which you say, "you mean 'moral perfection' in a much looser sense, as more of a benevolent figure of speech than a remorseless, implacable standard."

Nope, that ain't it. So I'll attempt to make my best, better. When I say that "Don't bother me" is an example of James Taggart's immorality, I am applying a standard of morality that is implacable and doesn't allow for easy remorse (the kind of remorse that wife-beaters display when they promise never to do it again in order to keep their victims within easy punching distance). When I say that the Sures were examples of moral perfection, I am applying the same standard of morality. I am saying of the Sures that they bothered to think, every day, to the best of my knowledge. That is an implacable, remorseless, standard. And, as I've said before, the discipline of it is not effortless, but is natural -- it is the way one lives. One has to learn it (it may be man's method of living, but it is not an automatic instinct), and one has to practice it on a regular, daily basses. The discipline of doing that - of turning one's mind on -- is an achievement. The discipline is not satisfied by "kinda, sorta, trying to think when I feel like it or when I have it on my to-do list.'' It is a demanding commitment to approach everything that one does -- from solving a problem at work or in one's marriage to deciding on a movie to relax -- with a mind turned on.

Let me attempt to make this clearer with reference to physical fitness. One could, I suppose, make Superman the standard of physical fitness. But wouldn't that be stupid? To set Superman as the standard is to ask for something not achievable by any man qua man and to ask for just the kind of "crucifixion" that Christianity demands (the problem with Christianity is not that it HAS a standard, it's that it has the wrong standard). One could also set the standard at "drunken, stumbling bum in the gutter." But that is also stupid. Setting the standard so low is to deny the standard of living one's life. What one wants is a standard that is adequate to the task. OH! Surprise, that is the standard of physical fitness. One wants to be able to do the physical tasks that are required of one in the course of living one's life. And it is the ability to do the tasks that is an implacable standard. One doesn't say "well I kinda, sorta, can lift that 50 pound bag of concrete" so I'm physically fit (assuming lifting the bag is one of the tasks required of your life) One admits that one is not adequate to the task and improves one's fitness.

Now there are all kinds of interesting ramifications to what I've just written, including some very interesting questions about just how far we can go with this analogy. But my point is that given an appropriate standard, it must be applied remorselessly and implacably. If one is going to flourish -- that is, truly live one's life -- then one must turn on one's mind. In other words one must work at it. Just as, if one is going to be physically fit (adequate to the task), one has to work at it.

That's all I have time for today.

Tom

Post 204

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 2:11pm

Tom wrote:
>Daniel, maybe there are some points of agreement between Robert B. and me. But I'm still not sure that you have gotten what I'm attempting to say.

>It is a demanding commitment to approach everything that one does -- from solving a problem at work or in one's marriage to deciding on a movie to relax -- with a mind turned on.

Well, one could hardly argue with that. However, "a mind turned on" certainly doesn't sound like the kind of crazy-making hyperrationalism Bidinotto is criticising, so again, I don't see a major conflict there. It's simply saying "Don't sleepwalk through your life", "use your head" etc.

Which is all well and good as far as that goes. But if you're proposing a standard that could be applied "remorselessly and implacably", then things like having your "mind turned on" are not going to do it - it's far too vague. To use your analogy, it'd be like an exercise program that consisted of merely the recommendation to "do some exercise"! Standards have to have a strict formulation to be meaningful, let alone be applied with the severity it sounds like you're aiming at. You want to avoid anything that's "mushy or watered down", so is there a clear, specific standard you have in mind?

- Daniel

Post 205

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 7:08pm

Daniel, based on your post #204, I think you get what I was driving at.

Any standard of "moral perfection" that means something akin to "use your head" or "keep your mind turned on" is just hopelessly vague.

Let me summarize where I am now on this issue.

The diligent use of reason, or intense focus, or full rational engagement, or whatever other synonym one may use to describe it, certainly constitutes the source of moral action. Tom and I do not disagree on this, or on its crucial importance. How Tom would counsel someone to use his mind, and how I would, are probably no different.

Yet after scanning more than 200 posts on this thread, and many more on the other one, I still do not know what "perfection" means in reference to "mental focus" -- that is, as a mental activity. I know the value of thinking hard; I know it is the core of virtue; but I don't yet know what I gain by applying the descriptive term of "moral perfection" to the act of thinking hard, and I still haven't a clue as to what it means to do so "perfectly."

How can one measure "moral perfection" in one's consciousness? Is it just a kind of "on-off" switch: I'm either conscious, or I'm not? Or are there instead degrees or intensity of diligence, focus, engagement? Is "perfection" thus measured on some kind of continuum of consciousness? If so, then what are the units of measurement? On what scale do I gauge my level of mental activity and engagement? What would the ultimate state of full consciousness (moral perfection) look like? How would it be experienced? How would I know for certain that I was "there"? How could I determine that no further effort could be brought to bear at any given moment?

And if we are merely referring to "doing my best at all times," then describing that activity as "perfection" seems a trifle grandiose, and pointless.

What, then, do I gain by concerning myself with this vague idea?

On the other hand, I do see a downside to being concerned about the nebulous notion of "moral perfection." If I don't know exactly what "perfection" would require in terms of my mental activity, then to try to measure my moral worth and character against that vague, indeterminate standard seems a recipe for moral self-doubt and "self-consciousness" (in the negative sense).

Another thought has occurred to me as I write. I confess that I haven't teased out all the implications, so bear with me.

While mental focus is the critical, irreplaceable basis or source of morality, I am not at all certain that it is the whole of morality. This may be part of the problem we've been having here. In addition to the choice to think (or not), it seems to me that there is an additional moral choice that one can and does make: to act on one's thinking, or not. Thinking that is not translated into action is hypocrisy. Thinking that is translated into action is integrity.

And that brings me to one sense in which I believe "moral perfection" can have intelligibility and can be measured. We know what "integrity" and "consistency" mean: they mean conforming your actions to your thinking. Degrees of such conformity are measurable, and we can make moral assessments on that basis. If you act consistently with your thinking, that could be called "perfection." (It is in this sense, incidentally, that I meant I've never yet encountered a morally "perfect" -- i. e., completely consistent -- human being.)

But trying to ascribe a notion of "perfection" to the mental activity alone -- to only the mental aspects of the moral continuum that proceeds from thought through action -- well, that notion of "moral perfection" continues to elude me.

Until some kind of useful measurements and boundaries can be applied to the notion of "moral perfection," as it pertains to actions of consciousness, I prefer not to worry myself about it. Concerning myself with using my mind "perfectly" seems of far less value than using it well, and to translating it into action. In any case, long experience around people obsessed with Being Perfect warns me that, psychologically, the Perfect can be the enemy of the Good.

Thanks to Tom and all of you for participating in this exchange. Your probing thoughts and often ingenious arguments have been of great value to me as I've tried to sort through all this.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/04, 9:37pm)

Post 206

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 9:41pm

Robert,

Wonderful post again on this topic. I want to add an almost childlike idea that popped into my head on this (of the emperor is naked variety).

Teaching a child how to be "morally perfect":

1. Learn the difference between right and wrong.
2. Decide you only want to do right.
3. When you want to do wrong, you got to stop wanting it.
4. Do only right.
5. If you ever do wrong, correct it and don't ever do it again. It doesn't matter why you did it.

Does that make any sense to us adults?

Michael

Post 207

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 10:43pm

Sounds good, Michael. Or more succinctly: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Brendan

Post 208

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:03am

Robert writes:
>And if we are merely referring to "doing my best at all times," then describing that activity as "perfection" seems a trifle grandiose, and pointless.

Agreed.

>What, then, do I gain by concerning myself with this vague idea?

There's a quote I always think of that goes, roughly, "Scholasticism...is treating as precise what is actually vague". There's no way you can claim "doing one's best at all times" or "think!" or similar injunctions are "remorseless, implacable" standards. Attempting to do so only ends in verbalist arguments, the intellectual equivalent of stapling custard to the ceiling.

A remorseless, implacable standard is something like a cubic metre for "size" or Pantone 216 for "colour".

I agree with everything else you have to say, particularly:

>In any case, long experience around people obsessed with Being Perfect warns me that, psychologically, the Perfect can be the enemy of the Good.

Humans are fallible. Anything infallible is, therefore, not human.

- Daniel

Post 209

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 2:01am

Hey guys,

Brendan - the golden rule? LOL...

Daniel - Humans are fallible. Anything infallible is, therefore, not human.

LOL...

I gotta get to bed - it's really late. But it will be good to conk out with these delightful thoughts on my mind...

Michael

Post 210

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 6:03am

Well, I haven't been on this thread in a while, but I thought I'd jump on while you guys are resting your neurons from late-night pontificating.

I think that one cannot think of moral perfection without also thinking of happiness. The more moral we are, the happier we should be. Therefore anyone who could be morally perfect should be perfectly happy.

More specifically, since achieving one's values optimumly is what makes us happy, and since happiness is the goal of living, then perfectly achieving the means for obtaining values would be the best thing.

Since we know that virtue is the means for achieving values, then perfect virtue should give us perfect happiness -- and the closer we get to perfect virtue the closer we get to purr-fect happiness. ;-)

Since we also know that reason is the primary virtue and that it comprises the other virtues, then we "simply" have to execute these virtues to achieve all of the above.

But before we can execute any of the above, we have to choose to do so and we have to focus during the process on our virtues and our values and keep them in constant harmony for the reward of happiness.

This is all theoretical, but it can be true for any person -- and it can certainly be the goal for all of us as we travel our paths to happiness.

Let me give a brief concrete (simple) example on all of the above that highlights what I'm talking about:

Let's say that your top three values are (1) work (2) health (3) spouse/partner. And then let's say that you haven't done any fitness regimen for several days because your work has been intense. You're body feels awful and you're aching to get to the workout center. Your wife approaches and really wants to go see a remake of Casablanca (ouch!) at the theater. You want to please her badly and you wouldn't mind seeing the movie (for humor) anyway, but you're concerned about getting too far out of your regimen. As you're trying to decide this dilemma, somebody from work calls and says they need something for the next day that will have to be done by lunchtime tomorrow.

The only way to handle this trilemma is to remember the importance of each value and decide which of these three is the most important right now. You would have to think of things like: Can I enjoy myself at all if I don't work out? I haven't spent much time with my spouse recently and it would be terrific to go the movie with her. Can I do the job project in the morning before lunch, perhaps getting up a little earlier. I want a promotion at the job and this might be my chance to get it with an extraordinary project? If I keep missing my workouts, it'll be harder when I get back to the gym. How badly does my spouse want to go to the movie, and will she be OK if we go tomorrow night or next week? Etc.

The thing that's important about this example is that our values have to be in place and must be rationally determined beforehand, and then we must figure out rationally (with the questions) above what hierarchy is good at the moment (always). All of this must be done with our life goal of happiness in mind.

Moral perfection involves keeping the mind focused on virtues, values and, of course, happiness).

P.S. Robert, I don't think there are degrees of focus on reality. We are either focused or we are not. We can let our minds drift sometimes, but at any given moment, the mind is either focused on a particular thing or it is drifting without attachment to thoughts. The "intensity" that you talk about is, I think, the length of time we might dedicate to thinking about a particular thing.

Post 211

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 6:17am

All,

Well, you raised the very questions that gave me pause as I signed off yesterday, not because I think what I said was wrong, but because I realized it was incomplete.

Some of you were good enough to provide arguments. Thanks. And I'll deal with them and make some fresh attempts.

Here I only want to make a comment, after which I'll repair to my Ivory Tower to prepare for battle.

I detect, in several of the posts, both before and after #203 and in several other threads, an impatience with the abstractness of philosophy, coupled with a continuing desire for "RULES". It isn't enough to tell me to think all the time and if I do that I'm morally perfect. No, I want...what? Specific exercises? The laws of logic?

In the nature of the beast, philosophy identifies the nature of the forest. That's what makes it possible to describe a philosophy while standing on one foot. As I've pointed out in another thread (I think, don't have time to review this morning), everything else is context-driven.

Objectivism doesn't even give the rule: think. It says, IF you want to live, IF you want to flourish (see Tara Smith on the identity between these two) then you have to think (see Galt's Speech for this).

In fact, Objectivism doesn't even start with "think", it starts (in ethics) with: self-interest, from which it derives the virtue of thinking (rationality). Yes, "self-interest" has to be "fleshed out." But that doesn't change the fact that "moral perfection" for Objectivism consists of being self-interested all the time, not from some specific, context-driven, decision about what one's self-interest is IN THAT CONTEXT.

Yes, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" needs to be fleshed out to have significance, but in this case it is the entire context that is wrong. I'll flesh this out as soon as I can, but right now, my context says that the selfish thing for me to do is shift focus to the rest of my day.

Tom Rowland

Post 212

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 6:42am

Another profound PowerPoint moment from the grand observer:

1. Learn the difference between right and wrong.
2. Decide you only want to do right.
3. When you want to do wrong, you got to stop wanting it.
4. Do only right.
5. If you ever do wrong, correct it and don't ever do it again. It doesn't matter why you did it.

Thanks, Love, up on the refrigerator it goes....

Post 213

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:06am

Daniel,

Do you honestly think that if I used the standard of "don't sleepwalk through your life" or "use your head" in, as I said, "everything one does" on a "daily basis", I'd get a lot of people (even a majority) as members of that set in today's culture?

Not bloody likely.

What you'd see is a lot of compartmentalization. People are rational about their work, but put reason (as they, themselves, understand the process) aside in their marriages or on Sunday or in the voting booth or when they use their credit cards. This is not moral perfection.

Here is my explicit definition: "moral perfection (for Objectivism, in a healthy adult context) is the disciplined application of reason (given one's current knowledge of the process) to every issue that one deals with, on a daily basis." If you don't understand the inclusion of the parenthetical context, I'll be happy to explain.

Given that definition, do you think that it's "loose" and "too vague" and "not severe enough" so that it would make everyone a member of the set of "morally perfect" people?"

BTW, the answer (that the specifics and the standard of perfection are context-driven) to your objection about "exercise" is in the paragraph I wrote on exercise. But I'll be glad to "flesh it out" some more if you wish.

Tom

Post 214

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:20am

David,

An excellent example of what I've been calling "context-driven" specifics and, indeed, of moral perfection.

Tom

Post 215

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:33am

quote

1. Learn the difference between right and wrong.
2. Decide you only want to do right.
3. When you want to do wrong, you got to stop wanting it.
4. Do only right.
5. If you ever do wrong, correct it and don't ever do it again. It doesn't matter why you did it.

Kat and Michael,

Since I'm not sure whether this was a serious attempt to paraphrase what you think I'm saying, or mockery, I'm not sure whether I should bother to answer it.

Please advise.

Tom

Post 216

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:49am

Tom,

I've often eschewed criticisms of analogies only because I sometimes find such criticism to be nitpicking when the analogies are used to illustrate a paradigm rather than to serve as exact parallels. However, I will use your physical exercise example and illustrate some of the empirical difficulties that come with defining perfection apart from a specific context. My argument will deal mostly with the problems of specialization and balance.

Robert B. discussed in post 129/130 a very important issue that wasn't touched upon by anyone else in depth. It is that the limited nature of man will often result in one kind of optimized behavior having a corresponding deficiency in another kind of activity related to the same behavior.

It is virtually impossible to speak of the perfect exercise regimen without speaking about the goal of the regimen. Let's talk about specialization first. Exercising to improve longevity is often not the same as exercising to be a top-level athlete in certain sports. You cannot recommend the physique of a marathon runner to a sprinter, nor can you recommend that of a weightlifter to a javelin thrower. Heptathletes and decathletes, who do seven and ten events respectively at a world class standard, are not the very best at any single event. In fact, they would never medal if they took on one of the sports they were good at (there are rare exceptions, Jackie Joyner Kersee's long jump performances coming to mind).

Being bulky makes you slower and reduces certain aspects of your endurance. That's why marathon runners have lean bodies and even sprint athletes are not built like weight lifters or shot putters.

So the fact that specialization can make you the very best in your field, but will often necessarily lead to imbalances in other parts of your life makes balance an issue.

There are some merits in a general purpose balance, and by "general purpose", I mean having the kind of abilities that might not optimize your behavior in a specific context, but which will make your behaviors competent in a wide range of contexts. However, consider the fact that even evolving from one mode to the other might take time. Consciousness is finite and I have to be selective about what consumes my thoughts. Therefore, it is possible that the same way a boxer changing weight classes has to gain weight and adapt his boxing style to a new situation, I might need intensive training to adapt my intellectual disposition to a new situation.

However, we can tell and measure to some degree when a person is making the right changes. If a person needs to change his physical build to perform well in a sport other than the one he specialized in, his performance in the new sport and the way his changes in physical build facilitate his new performances will be the final arbiters. If a person tries to change his decision making processes, we will see how well he does if the quality of his decisions improves.

And we can do this without a debilitating focus on perfection. Because we can see that in certain contexts, certain behaviors are appropriate and certain behaviors are not. Sometimes, we do not need so much to change the individual as to change his context.

This might not be relevant to your definition of moral perfection. However, I do think that it touches upon the importance of context. We know how to put people on exercise programs to improve their health. Do we really need to know what perfect health is to do this?

Post 217

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 9:01am

Tom,

It was dead serious. Not mockery. Besides I have way too much respect for you to mock you on anything.

(As a sense-of-life aside, I take playful jabs at people sometimes but back off if I see that I actually hurt their feelings. If someone gets outright ridiculous or disgusting and I want to express my contempt for their position, I normally serve it out straight with no chaser. The very few times I do mock, I always strive for what the French call the bon mot to make it more interesting - to rise above crude mockery, which I find demeaning not only to those who are mocked, but those who mock. To me crude mockery shows a complete lack of imagination and a limited intellect. This - shall we call it moral perfection??? - //;-) - comes from a benevolent sense of life and a playfulness of character I find difficult to contain. Guess which philosophy I employed to hone and polish this particular sense of life?)

Back to the issue at hand. I find going to a child's approach wonderfully refreshing at times. Especially when an issue gets caught up in all sorts of twists and turns of derivative conclusions - to the extent where you can lose sight of the original premises.

I also like how a child will use the basic words he/she first learned concepts with. Sometimes they act like pulling the bottom card from a house of cards - the emperor is naked thing. (And I do admit to finding it very entertaining when it all actually does come tumbling down because of a child's comment - I have seen it happen a few times.)

I hold the opinion that any Objectivist idea worth its salt will be able to stand up to a change in jargon. This focus probably originated from me being a translator, where I was forced to use the same concepts with different words. But you can do that in English too. I have found the approach of restating Objectivist stances in other words that mean the same thing a very good method of testing for logical cracks and soundness. And it is an extremely effective tool for transmitting Objectivist ideas to those who do not define their terms as we do.

Edit - btw - This is not meant to sound pert so please don't take it that way. I did the child's approach thing to paraphrase my own thinking (and get a handle on that of all the other posters on this thread, including Robert's) and see if there is a way to cut to the essentials so we can all agree, not just to paraphrase your position. I though we were starting to agree on the commitment thing anyway. //;-)

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/05, 9:17am)

Post 218

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 10:25am

Tom, I'm sorry. I certainly was not mocking what you or anyone else here has said.

Just to put this in context... I have two kids and I am a powerpoint artist by trade (seriously). I want my kids to understand objectivism as a philosophy for living real life. Those 5 points made such a clear, concise and impactful statement that I think is good for parents to share with their kids.

*purr alert*

I greatly admire Michael's wonderful way of translating complex ideas into something easily understandable and doable. I am very proud to be his kitten and am looking forward to sharing his wonderful influence with my kids as well. *purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

Post 219

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 10:45am