Forum Home | Login

John Galt

Join Date 07/2004

"Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

Before I make any further comment: Rand was wrong about Homosexuality as I have previously stated. Why she was wrong is the issue.

Recently, as a result of people reading the immenently accessible works of Terry Goodkind, himself an Objectivist there has sprung up yet another variation on the theme. Which is fine as far as it goes. "Reasonism" is the name of their belief system, and it's clearly based on the immature understandings of Rand that one would get from being able to read Terry Goodkind's works, but not fully understanding the works of Ayn Rand or more specifically her non-fiction works. This is a very common problem, because while Terry Goodkind writes at a grade 8 level (tested using the Ontario standard from reading level), Rand's non-fiction on the basis of Objectivism is written at 2nd or 3rd year university and the more you dive into it, the harder it gets to read. I for one am not ashamed to admit that I read it with a dictionary beside me the entire time to ensure that I was getting the full and correct meaning.

At any rate, the point is that some very seriously dangerous things come out of ignorance:

"What one man values is amoral. How a man interacts with others is either moral or immoral."

What they're saying is that values are only applicable to interactions with others. They do not apply to the individual's life. While there is a more drawn out version of this proof by Rand and others, the short version is: This is patently rediculous for a group of individuals to suggest that something only matters in the context of the group. Further it's even worse because it completely denies the very fundamental understanding of values. Values are tools. They exist for a purpose and that is to define what is good or evil to us. Their most fundamental purpose is to guide our own lives, not the lives of others.

A man's values should (and are not if they believe in God) reflect is joy of life and his purpose to constantly improve his life. Thus a man's values will reflect this. It is the values of a man that helps him decide right and wrong. A man values that which improves his own life and doesn't value that which doesn't. For instance, a man may value money because it is the representation of trade with others. That money allows the man to improve his life by getting goods that he needs to improve his life in fair trade and thus make money off of the product of his own hard work. It is specifically money that is the agreement between two parties to trade without the use of force. Thus, because money, when used in this context is improves a man's life, it is good and thus should be valued by man.

Their suggestion that the values and actions of another man in the context of how they affect himself and only himself are amoral and thus irrelivent to you is patently silly. The content of the man's character, which defines how he will act in any given situation and thus the level of trust you have in him, is not limited to only the things that affect you, but to all of that man's actions, because only when you see the complete picture can you make a correct judgement. For instance, just because you have never been hurt by a man's addiction to cocaine, does that mean that you should value that man the same as one that is not? Of course not, the man is harming himself volantarily and thus, because he doesn't value his own life, he cannot be trusted to value yours and infact because of the destructive choice, can be counted upon to harm yours. Thus your value system should tell you that that man should be stayed away from, because you value your life and your enjoyment of yoru life, not hardship and pain that comes from that type of man.

Of course all of this comes from men trying to reconcile their logical knowledge that homosexuality is neither evil nor denotes any value on the man's life. Rand said that it was evil. Her reason was that it doesn't propogate the species. Propogation of the species is completely irrelivent to whether or not it is evil. The only consideration is "does it improve or harm a man's life?" The answer is NEITHER. Why? Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth and is completely irrelivent to the quality of a man. Judge me by the content of my character. Homosexuality has nothing to do with character, or CHOICE or good or evil. Thus Rand was wrong. She was wrong, because she believed the scientific statements of the time that said that homosexuality is societal and a choice and not genetic or as we're finding out, directly related to the amount of testosterone in the mother's womb and the mother's immune system attacking the foreign substance (XY instead of XX).

But because they can't just say "Rand was wrong in this specific case" and instead of have to say "Rand's funamental understanding of values is wrong because of this one example" they go and twist everything around. Rand's understanding of values is exactly right and completely non-contradictory. Her understanding of the nature of homosexuality was incomplete and thus her conclusions were wrong. (under her assertion with today's knowledge, she would have been evil too because she didn't propogate the species by having children, no matter that she was sterile.)

This is the problem (if you can call it that) with Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge.

And while it doesn't seem like a big difference, it is and the most fundamental level. They have created a contradition. An exception that stops the universal from being true and as a result, will continue to make erronious assertions. And because it's comfortable to not have to judge other's actions and their values that got them there, others will embrace this half-belief system and harm themselves in the process.

philosophy

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth"

If I was you I would delete that sentence and my post before this blog turns ugly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

[quote]"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth"

that is sort of a strange part of your blog. i (with fingers crossed) hope that it was entered wrong.

choosing to be gay does say something about one's character. what it say's is anyone's guess. but no matter what you do or don't do in life, its your choice. it's called personal responsibility. no-one here can judge someones life to be good or evil, its not our place, but why hide behind something like "i had no part in this, i was born this way." if that is the case, shouldn't we be dumping money into finding the cure, instead of funding the parade?

i would be able to get behind the gay movement if they could get over "being born gay", choose it, own it, and take what comes with it.

i believe that "normal people" would be less offended by gay people if they weren't trying to make us accept them. why should we have to think of homosexuality as a normal thing, and some folks are just born that way? if they said, this is how we are going to do it. butt out. i at least would just say, huh, okay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

this is how we are going to do it. butt out.

Gay people say, "This is how we do it -- butt out"? Or is that a parenthetical direction. "We do it like this, honey!" Stick butt out.

Am I the only one who found that ironically hilarious?

(Yes, I know he meant a different definition of "butt," but given the subject matter....)

Successfully updated karma reason!

And, yeah, I'm not even going to touch the "having black skin is a mistake" thing.

We'll just tiptoe around that one and on out of here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

yeah, i stared at that after i posted it. butt out. stupid.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Using "mistake" was a poor word choice, however the context it was used in makes it clear that he was not saying that it's a bad thing to be black or gay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

She was wrong, because she believed the scientific statements of the time that said that homosexuality is societal and a choice and not genetic or as we're finding out, directly related to the amount of testosterone in the mother's womb and the mother's immune system attacking the foreign substance (XY instead of XX).

Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge.

If you have followed your own advice you would have reached a completely different (and objective)conclusion.

If it is a genetic quirk in the womb, like any other birth defect wouldnt you say that it should be treated?

not only that, wouldnt you say that since it is a genetic defect it is not "normal" and the behavior resulting from it is not "normal" and should be treated?

If homosexuals understand what they are saying they should be seeking treatments not trying to make people accept the results of a genetic defect as "normal". Actually they should be upset if society didnt provide that treatment for them like it does for say Autism or many other afflictions resulting from genetic defects.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hello. I will be giving the Reasonist response in this comment. For some parts I will skip forward to respond to specific points, and then return to address the entire section as a whole. All unlabeled quotations are taken directly from the blog post.

""Reasonism" is the name of their belief system, and it's clearly based on the immature understandings of Rand that one would get from being able to read Terry Goodkind's works, but not fully understanding the works of Ayn Rand or more specifically her non-fiction works."

Personally, I have read most of the major non-fictions (ItOE, VoS, TRM, FTNI, and P:WNI ; none of the bookstores near me seem to ever have C:TUI or TNL:TAR in stock, so I will probably have to order them), and am currently reading The Voice of Reason. I do not consider myself to have had any problem understanding Miss Rand, nor have any of the Objectivists that frequent our message boards identified problems in my understanding of Rand. I am more than willing to discuss aspects of Miss Rand's works with you to demonstrate my understanding. The overgeneralization and the ad hominem are fun, though.

"This is a very common problem, because while Terry Goodkind writes at a grade 8 level (tested using the Ontario standard from reading level), Rand's non-fiction on the basis of Objectivism is written at 2nd or 3rd year university and the more you dive into it, the harder it gets to read."

I am not familiar with the Ontario standard form reading level (and a quick google search yields no valid results). I am, however, a 3rd year university student, and, again, contrary to your generalizations about me, I do not have trouble reading Rand (ItOE was somewhat difficult, though, and required slower reading).

"A man's values should (and are not if they believe in God) reflect is joy of life and his purpose to constantly improve his life."

This is not a coherent sentence. Is 'is' supposed to be 'his'?

"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth and is completely irrelivent to the quality of a man."

I use the term "accident of birth" as opposed to "mistake of birth". It tends to avoid problems such as those in other comments.

Sexuality clearly is a choice, by the way. Homosexual men choose to live closeted, heterosexual lives all the time. The base level physical attractions are, lets say, 'largely' genetic. Like taste buds (except much more complex - the purpose of using the taste example is to simplify it). You cant choose what kind of taste buds you will have - whether you will prefer the taste of vanilla or chocolate. But if you wanted to you could eat chocolate even though you hate the taste. So yes, there is choice involved.

"Rand said that it was evil. Her reason was that it doesn't propogate the species."

I have yet to see anyone else offer what Miss Rand's reasoning behind her statement was - so this position is new to me. How did you get this information about Miss Rand's thoughts? I fail to see how Miss Rand could have held such a position, though, given that she held (rightly, and consistently) that there is no moral requirement to propogate the species. If you dont have to propogate the species to be good, then why would you need to be able to procreate with your partner for your relationship to be good? And, of course, she did not have any children of her own. Would she have said that she was evil, because she didnt propogate the species? I think not. (And yet, apparently, I am the one who doesnt understand Objectivism.)

"The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional." - Ayn Rand, Of Living Death

(As a small aside: another quotation from the same essay
"To clasify the unique emotion of romantic love as a form of friendship is to obliterate it: the two emotional categories are mutually exclusive. The feeling of friendship is asexual; it can be experienced toward a member of one's own sex." - Ayn Rand, Of Living Death
Did anyone else have a 'WTF!?' moment when reading this?)

The following is a response to the main body of the blog. I am going to eliminate all but the first few words of each paragraph for the sake of shortening this comment.

""What one man values is amoral. How a man interacts with others is either moral or immoral."

What they're saying is...

A man's values should...

Their suggestion that...

Of course all...

But because they can't just say..."

Firstly, I am not going to try to defend that quotation. It is invalid - it does not reflect the beliefs of Reasonists. It is not wording that I support. The origin of such words is the distinction that we draw between morality in scenarios between men (the principle of which is that men should not infringe on the rights of other men) and in scenarios of a man's own values (the principle of which is that men should pursue their own rationally-determined interests). Once more, though - that is not our position. This is a straw man through context dropping, though much of the fault belongs with those who use such wording. I have personally pointed out the problem involved in such wording to individuals (who have responded along the lines of "Oooooh, um, oops."), and, as far as I know, it is not used any more.

Secondly, I will point out briefly that to DISAGREE with Ayn Rand is not to FAIL TO UNDERSTAND Ayn Rand. Even if that were specifically our position, it would reflect a DISAGREEMENT, not a failure to understand.

Thirdly, I will provide you with the correct Reasonist position on ethics.

I do not simply accept Rand's definition of ethics as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions" (AR, VoS) - I accept a more broad definition of ethics as dealing with all of good and evil. This means that ethics involves both man's values (himself personally) and his interactions with other men (others). Whereas Objectivism places the ethics-politics dividing line in between the individual and multiple individuals, we leave the study of good and evil (for individuals and for their interactions (ie multiple individuals)) within the realm of ethics. Non-infringement (not infringing on the rights of others; roughly analagous to, but arrived at differently than, non-initiation of force) is thus an ethical concept upon which political principals (such as economy and government) are built. Reasonists do not reject Rand's theory of values - we accept life as the standard of value, reason, purpose and self-esteem as core values, etc. What we do not accept is the way Rand applied her philosophy to make judgements about others' values - it is to each man for himself to evaluate his values, not for any individual to dictate to another (aside from direct, core values) what they should or should not value (and I am not suggesting that Objectivism necessarily does so). Again, I do not reject the basic premises of Rand's ethics - what I reject is the idea that that is all there is to ethics, as well as Rand's applied ethics (or, as the case may be, Rand's failure to correctly apply her own philoosphy, which may or may not have been based on her own lack of information).

"This is the problem (if you can call it that) with Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge."

Sounds like what you have done in regards to myself and my fellows.

"And because it's comfortable to not have to judge other's actions and their values that got them there, others will embrace this half-belief system and harm themselves in the process."

This isnt a coherent sentence, either.

I am most certainly in favor of moral judgement. I wholeheartedly approve of the principle of "judge - and prepare to be judged" (AR). I judge you to be unworthy of the alias you use.

For those interested, our website is http://www.reasonslight.com
Please join us at our forums if you wish to discuss this (or any issue) with us.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth"

OK, obviously people don't understand the english language any more. *sigh*

Mistake of birth does not imply fault or a negative. It means exactly the opposite. It means that it is irrelivent and immaterial and does not denote a positive or a negative to you as a human.

Me being white is also a mistake of birth and completely irrelivent to my value as a person.

People really need to relax about this stuff and read. It really helps.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"If homosexuals understand what they are saying they should be seeking treatments not trying to make people accept the results of a genetic defect as "normal". Actually they should be upset if society didnt provide that treatment for them like it does for say Autism or many other afflictions resulting from genetic defects."

That would entirely be their choice and not up to society. Autism is also a mistake of birth, and irrelivent to the worth of the person (unless they choose to be a human interaction coach of course!). Just as the deaf person can choose to have implants now, a large numbe do not. That's their choice. As long as they don't wear it as a victim or try and use their difference as some sort of clouge to beat you over the head with and gain sympathy, it's irrelivent.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Firstly, I am not going to try to defend that quotation. It is invalid - it does not reflect the beliefs of Reasonists. It is not wording that I support. The origin of such words is the distinction that we draw between morality in scenarios between men (the principle of which is that men should not infringe on the rights of other men) and in scenarios of a man's own values (the principle of which is that men should pursue their own rationally-determined interests). Once more, though - that is not our position. This is a straw man through context dropping, though much of the fault belongs with those who use such wording. I have personally pointed out the problem involved in such wording to individuals (who have responded along the lines of "Oooooh, um, oops."), and, as far as I know, it is not used any more."

It's on the home page.

"I have yet to see anyone else offer what Miss Rand's reasoning behind her statement was - so this position is new to me. How did you get this information about Miss Rand's thoughts?"

She elaborated when asked in a 1976 speach that she gave. I don't have the direct reference to it right now and unfortunately don't have the time to look it up. If necessary I will for you.

"What one man values is amoral. How a man interacts with others is either moral or immoral."

This sentence and other sentences similar to this one are all over your web site and the forums and defended by the founders repeatedly in the debate about the home page content. They clearly are at the heart of your position. And it is wrong for the reasons I outlined. A man's values are not amoral, they are moral or immoral based on the concrete measurement of benefit or deficit to one's life and the lives of those you affect in the process. You're creating a separation where none-exists. You cannot hold values without action, they are the root of all human action. It doesn't matter if that person doesn't interact with others, those actions can and should be judged to determine if you wish to interact with that person, and to project a likely outcome of said interaction.

Again, the mistake made is a need, because Rand was wrong about homosexuality and a few other things, to create something other than Objectivism to justify it. The key is that Objectivism is not flawed or in need of fixing. The woman was, just as she was wrong about smoking and corrected it herself in the early 70s when it became clear that the evidence was real and not propoganda like it was in the 50s. She would have done the same in this case if she had lived long enough to be shown the truth. (based on her previous behaviour) Those that stick to her position are Randians. They are not Objectiivsts. They follow her position and justify said position simply because she said it, not because it is an Objective truth.

There is no flaw in her logic, only her understanding of the situation and the facts (which were wrong at the time) surrounding homosexuality.

And BTW, the homosexual man that chooses the live in the closet as a heterosexual, is immoral. He is lying to himself and everyone around him about his nature. To not value the truth in such a fundamental way is to be anti-truth. The consequences of which are obivous (hurting the woman you're in a relationship with when she finally and enevitably finds out being only the smallest example).

And BTW, the terminology of using "mistake of birth" is not mine. It is Rand's and as you know, because English was her second language she was very aware of every word she choose and their meanings (hence why definitions figure so largely in her epistimology). Hence the terminology is correct, the interpretation by others is incorrect because of a lack of understanding of the word and the context in which it was used.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just as the deaf person can choose to have implants now, a large numbe do not

You really believe it is "their choice" not to have them?

are you saying they like being deaf and choose not to have them?

Is that what you call logical?

I never heard of anyone who has a problem due to birth defect and is not desperately seeking treatment. Have you heard of or know of any?

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

since it is a genetic defect it is not "normal" and the behavior resulting from it is not "normal" and should be treated?

is left-handedness normal?

if not, should lefties be treated?

Successfully updated karma reason!

is left-handedness normal?

if not, should lefties be treated?

let me remind you that it was not me who said homosexuality has a genetic reason. My comment was taking that assumption to its logical conclusion.

More to your question, left-handedness is not a defect in the genetic sequence as they assume in the case of homosexuality. it is a result of activity strength in the left side or the rigth side of the brain . The nature of the two conditions are not the same. being left or right handed doesnt make any difference. a left-handed person function as well as a right-handed person just using a different hand. A Gay person doesnt function as a man or as a woman. it is an in-between condition. not the case with left or right handedness.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: