[Ask the Gulch] Are Objectivists too inflexible? Would a Gulch be possible if no one is willing to compromise?
Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 7 months ago to Ask the Gulch
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
You see, I don't see the Gulch, even in the book, as a place for only pure Objectivists.
Even a relationship between only 2 people involves some minor compromises.
At the same time, it would not be possible for a religious person, for example, to insist that the other members of the Gulch accept their religious beliefs. He would have to accept that the Objectivists in the Gulch would disagree.
Edit: clarity
mormanism. I grew up across the river from Nauvoo. been to the public part of the TEMPLE freaked me the hell out. it was like I was in the the difecta of mysticism
The point is that most of the actions that would matter in the Gulch are about respecting individual rights, so most Libertarians would be welcome, even if their epistemology had huge contradictions.
Also, as an atheist who uses buddhist practices daily, I would argue that Buddhism isn't so much about transcending reality as it is checking your premises about what reality/self is with depth and precision. You can approach it mystically, but I think that is a mistake that the Buddha would counsel against. All the Buddhist religious trappings are cultural heritage (bath water), but the meditative practices are solid (baby).
That being said, I think that there is no reason that a community of Objectivists couldn't do business with a neighboring community of Mormons or Buddhists. I can tell you this much, if you started with three communities - Objectivist, Mormon, and Buddhist - of equal sizes, in a hundred years the Mormons would outnumber the collective populations of both the Objectivists and Buddhist by probably 2x without a single proselyte. ;)
This is what is happening to America, and I think is responsible in part for the change in culture towards socialism (the hispanics that have come here come from socialist countries and they bring their socialism with them). It used to be that immigrants adopted american ways and language, but now WE adopt their cultures and even language).
I'm pretty sure there will never be a real one.
If there is, I doubt I will live so long.
I find this place stimulating and I've learned a lot of stuff so far.
I've been a ""born again" Christian sice the 70s and only learned who Ayn Rand was when I had Netflix send me the AS1 DVD.
I now have all three DVDs and I've read some Ayn Rand.
You just gotta know that his cyberspace gulch is gonna attract its share of characters.
Like me~Allosaurus is Latin for "different lizard." Allosaur is the short form. .
Snarl! Me theropd carnosaur got me free speech!
Don't care if I AM stuck in this consarn Jurassic Park paddock!
I may be prehistoric, but I got my PC!
It's the organization and enforcement of such thoughts by those that are brain only, (no connection to the mind), that go arye.
Sorry - I couldn't resist.
We encounter similar difficulties when we attempt to describe many scientific theories, discoveries, or facts without the mathematical language utilized by the scientists that developed, found, or proved those things. Attempting to describe Einsteins derivation of theories of Relativity without using and understanding Lorentz transformations as well as the entire realm of mathematics and logic that underlies those transformation equations, is actually not possible in spoken/written language. The same holds for the term infinity.
It also holds for A=A. To grasp the import of that simple representation, one needs to understand that A is shorthand for identity in reality that is factual and repeatable with eyes open, by any human at any time and any place. We could go on and on with this discussion and innumerable examples. But in doing so, we would begin to encroach upon the genius of Rand--her ability to describe her philosophy with a story and to explain and demonstrate her logic with the verbal.
But back to your point about the unknowable/knowable. You use the example of "There's a difference between faith in the existence of a deity (which believers would say is very knowable), or a determination that something is simply beyond our current ability to understand". But what you miss in that statement is the definition of deity and the contradiction of "which believers would say is very knowable". Those exact same believers would not be able to describe that deity, where it is, or a cause/effect that's measurable and repeatable, or why it does what it supposedly does, or dozens of other descriptions that might lead other non-believers to identify, find, measure, apply repeatability--and invariably would fall back on the need to accept belief without proof, faith without demonstration, and that their deity is unknowable.
Do we know how all that we see was created or what created it?..is it watching?...no...but we are not stupid enough to think that it happened alllll by itself. Equally...to think that it always existed is just as bizarre. There is no reason to organize it, create rituals connected with it...but I do think...at least some degree of thought and appreciation for the fact that we are here, that we can create and survive, have some degree of cooperation and mutuality with each other and perhaps have sometime to let the wonder of it all sink in...now that's a direct observation of A=A...and that too...is amazing.
I doubt we'll ever figure it out but we will learn more as time goes on...if we survive all the current perversions.
But, not every conclusion that a person makes is totally conscious and the result of perfect knowledge. Therefore there will be differences in opinions, and I do think that it is best to try and get the most rational compromise that is available.
I would agree that certain basic human rights should not be compromised. But beyond those, compromise is a way to get things moving forward when there are disagreements.
I negotiate deals/agreements with people all day long, to mutual advantage. Is that what you mean?
Perfect knowledge isn't required. If it were required, scientific pursuits would be fruitless. Differences in opinion are fine, opinions are based off of value judgements. A compromise on opinions is not necessary any more than a compromise of one's values is necessary. Where facts are in dispute, well that is another area all together. For instance, Global Warming or No Global Warming, but that is where logic prevails. When you remove the subjectivity of "opinion" and all you are dealing with is objective facts, then what's the problem? Discover new facts that augment what was known? Great, integrate them in to the understanding of the concept and move on, or where previously held knowledge is proven unsound, modify decisions made based on the previous and now discredited knowledge and move on.
Be very careful throwing around the concept of compromise. When you start talking compromise you inadvertently admit that neither party is correct, but that a combination of incorrect positions is somehow superior to a single incorrect position. All of which is non-sense. If one position is correct, you obviously wouldn't ever compromise it.
So there should be no differences of opinions on objective issues.
Any "rational compromise" would be on subjective issues.
Is the earth cooling or warming for example. Is it a normal cycle, or caused by human intervention.
I do basically agree that there would be no difference of opinion on issues on which there was no difference in knowledge.
I would say that in a practical gulch, people could have different levels of knowledge, or they just disagree that the facts presented by some were in fact true.
The rational person with the most knowledge will be right. E.g. the true evidence re global warming says no significant warming, but those who do not choose to see the evidence or are simply emotional on the subject will disagree.
People will be people and even our Founding Fathers were not saints, albeit some more like a saint than others.
The way I see a Gulch is an agreement on a philosophy. If someone doesn't agree with the philosophy they are unlikely to be invited no mater how great their individual skill(s). The common philosophy should keep the disagreements to a minimum. A simple legal system would settle contract disputes.
From Part Three, Chapter I Atlantis, when John Galt is giving Dagny a tour of the valley, and they visit Stockton's foundry: "He's a sculptor," said Stockton, "When I came here, he and his partner had a sort of combination hand-forge and repair shop. I opened a real foundry, and took all of their customers away... He's making more money now, in shorter hours, than he used to make in his own foundry."
The alternative would be to say that certain professions, such as judges and doctors, will be regulated and licensed by some governing body. But these kinds of mandatory professional monopolies are typically created to protect the profession from competition, and not for the protection of the consumer, so I would hope this wouldn't have a place in the Gulch.
There is no need to get pissy and clickish. If every Objectivist left the moochers to their own devices, we would either be free of the moochers or the moochers would eventually get it and become producers.
It reminds me of what Rand had to say about the civil rights movement and Black Codes. She said that businesses should not be forced to hire minorities, nor serve them, or change how they accommodate them. Instead, everyone who abhors the behavior of those establishments should be able to identify them with ease so that they could avoid doing business with them so they might close down or change their ways.
I know I sound naive, but Rand was, after all, describing heroes.
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." For the New Intellectual, 216
A gulch willing to compromise is no longer a gulch.
AND, the owner of the property gets to decide what happens with the property. He can delegate that task to Galt or whatever. Just want to keep the authority straight.
Galt's authority is reason, not property.
Everyone is trying to get out of the failed world by bringing into a new successful world the reasons the reasons the old one failed.
By the time you work out all the things they have to have in common to have a decades long debate you will see its a none principled issue. Debates of chocolate vs vanilla can go on. The validity of the senses cannot.
As for compromise you should never compromise because when you do neither you or the other person is happy.
As an Objectivist I never compromise nor did I before I was an Objectivist!
This is a statement in favor of individualism and toleration, and a demand for moral conformity on a basic issue.
It would be hard to get even a million people to honestly swear that oath today.
But I note, it doesn't demand that one be 100% rational. It does, however, cut against the basic earthly counsel of most religions.
But Galt's Gulch Online should be open to all honest, courteous discussants and be most of all, a friendly place for Rand fans, not a home of doctrinal conformity.
(Of course, I'll be advocating Objectivism myself, but, given the state of the culture, it would be sad to have this become an echo-chamber for those ideas.)
I still believe that the Constitution was the best thing to be invented by mankind and I would love to see a return to its founding principles. If the Gulch were based on that, I believe we would see what the US saw in the early 1800's - a dramatic explosion of productivity and wealth.
allows objectivists to accept non-proselytizing Christians,
for example -- and it's not a compromise. . nothing is
"given up" in many instances of value acceptance.
if Richard Halley were muslim, would it not still be good
to enjoy his music? -- j
.
hurt.... okay ... if Richard were Christian....... ? -- j
.
this divide is the reason why I started the "would any
Christians be welcome in the gulch" series. . we got
a whole lot of comments -- hundreds. . the overall
consensus was, IMHO, having considered every comment:::
yes, if they did not proselytize or rub us wrong.
it was on the heels of that conversation, and the one
about souls, that I made the original "positive (meaning
net positive) value" comment here. . we have a bunch of
very fine Christian contributors here in the online gulch,
also in my humble opinion. . I figure that they would be
welcome in an actual gulch. . I hope so. -- j
.
A number of us have been told to leave on multiple occasions. I am one of the few who hasn't permanently left after such a "Be gone!"
I am assuming that the people in the Gulch will be at least as reasonable and logical as I. I think that's a reasonable assumption. :)
that includes those who support half way pragmatic compromises and the rest of that crap. It's understandable. If anyone spend too much of your life looking for excuses and reasons to give in they are bound to thenselves become the wrong choice.
Objectively speaking that point is long past as we watch the effort to justify the action. Aint' gonna work. I don't have to justify my position. It IS. What I see is a bunch of wanna be's who having publicly declared them selves guilty by stating lesser of evils is the way to go in one way or or form or another - try to evade culpability using other terminology.
Such irrationality is beyond any emotional consideration on my part except pity. I don't have to live with the results. i didn't choose the wrong choice or a make a compromise with the wrong side nor call it good. But then my morals, values, and standards are far different....and without purposes of evasion. No hate, no contempt just pity.
One more try.
This from Ayn Rand herself. "If one of the three solutions is compromise then the three solutions are one right and two wrong answers. Ergo sum compromise is never an acceptable solution. The gulch is possible only if no one is willing to compromise, Upon finding the solution the final answer is there is no compromise."
That is a subjective way out and fit for the lame and lazy. If wiling to compromise they couldn't be objectivists therefore you are not in the gulch.
I know that it is almost dogma that there are no really differences of opinion between fully rational people. But I do not find it so in the real world. Even when agreeing on Objectivist principles it is quite possible to disagree on how to best resolve a particular situation. Then what?