Ethics, morality and capitalism

[Marblehead]

Oh My Goodness.  Now I must suggest that Stephen Hicks does not understand Nietzsche either. 

 

In the table his assessment of Nietzsche's position in item 4, 5 and 6 are incorrect.  And 7 is likely incorrect but I would have to do a fine search to state so.

 

Remember, Nietzsche's entire philosophy points to "The Will To Power" by the individual.  To break away from herd mentality and false morality.  That is, to become "Beyond Good And Evil".

[Karl]

Oh My Goodness.  Now I must suggest that Stephen Hicks does not understand Nietzsche either. 

 

In the table his assessment of Nietzsche's position in item 4, 5 and 6 are incorrect.  And 7 is likely incorrect but I would have to do a fine search to state so.

 

Remember, Nietzsche's entire philosophy points to "The Will To Power" by the individual.  To break away from herd mentality and false morality.  That is, to become "Beyond Good And Evil".

The problem immediately is 'beyond good and evil' in other words the exact opposite to objectivism. Nietzsche is saying that social norms of morality are whims anyway and this slave mentality is what holds back the creation of a heroic superman. This is true, but it isn't true that we can be beyond good and evil. Objectivism rejects this approach, but the fountainhead seemed to suggest the opposite-I'm reading it at the moment so I will get a better understanding.

[Marblehead]

I'll wait.

[Karl]

I'll wait.

Be a while. I'm not a big fan of novels, used to love them, but these days I prefer big, dusty non-fiction.

[Karl]

Being a lazy bum. :-) I read through this piece, which, when taken with my understanding of Objectivism and of the generalised objection of Nietzschian philosophy found it Rand's/Piekoffs more succinct passages from essays/books/lectures, it would ring true. I really don't want to get too hung up in the evaluation because for me it isn't critical. It maybe more critical for you as you possibly identify in part as a Nietzschian and that familiarity helps to know objectivism from that angle. There is something similar in atlas Shrugged in which Ragnar steals from the Government in order to give back to those that had it stolen. This is Justice in direct action.

 

 

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/nietzsche&fountainhead.htm

 

As an addendum, on a personal note there was a time a time I thought 'if all these people want is a master, then why don't I have that position and give them what they want". I see that this would be a moral abdication and that apparent slavery of this type must be both explicit and voluntary. At present we have a population trained to act as slaves, the answer isn't to take advantage of that position, but instead to reveal to them, over time, that they have a choice. When I ran the business support unit I woukd often make reference to the Northern worker that still doffed his cap in deference to any boss, but it is important to differentiate between ones loyalty to an employer and that of a politician/thug/tyrant/gang leader.

[Marblehead]

Yes, one of the labels on my forehead is "Nietzschean".

 

I don't normally put much weight on articles written about Nietzsche's philosophy and while I did not thoroughly read Hunt's article I think he was very accurate in his assessment.

 

And as stated before and spoken to by Hunt is the concept of "The Will To Power".  This to me is the focal point of Nietzsche's philosophy.  However, I must point out that Nietzsche was not talking having power over others (as the Nazis used it) but rather having power of one's self.

 

The concept of Master/Slave speaks to this again and again.  Master of our self as opposed to Slave to others.  And this is why I consider Nietzsche to have been an Anarchist.  Had Nietzsche lived long enough I am sure he would have replaced God (who he declared dead) with his Superman - the man who was master of his self.

 

Sadly I do not have enough knowledge of Rand and the others to have been able to relate well with the theme of the article but my impression was pretty much in support of what my understandings are as a result of what we (you and I) have spoken to regarding Objectivism.

 

As I have said before, I don't find any serious contradictions between Nietzsche and Objectivism.  Perhaps Rand was intentionally trying to distance herself from Nietzsche but in my opinion she failed at that.

 

And bottom line, Nietzsche's philosophy is directed to the person who would be Master of their self.  As I understand it so far this is the prime objective of the Objectivist.

 

And I did like the way Hunt handled the concept of Active (Master) / Slave (Reactive).  And this is where Nietzsche's "spontaneity" is very important.  And as I mentioned, allowing one's self to dance when inspired to dance.

[Karl]

No it isn't the prime of objectivism. It isn't the master of self but the moral master of self. The morals being derived from the single value of a mans life with respect to existent reality. Remember 'rational selfishness' is the credo. Rational derives from reason and reason from reality, therefore ethics and morality are not simply adjuncts to be interpreted as one sees fit.

 

Nietzsche regards morals as anything that suits the purpose of becoming a superman, where as Rand regards morals as a necessity for human voluntary consensual activity ( trading in all aspects) and in the case of a Robinson Crusoe scenario directly to self.

 

Nietzsche agrees with Rand on the subject of altruism and self sacrifice, but instead of morality he goes straight to the power of will. In other words this is man acting as God and that may include any man and not a 'leader' King or whatever. In the end the result could well be a monster such as Hitler who had whimsical morality disconnected from reality.

 

This is the difference. It takes a lot to get the head around it. Very much more difficult in comparison to other Mystics, but ultimately just an inversion. Instead of a God/ Society ruling men, men act as Gods themselves. I can see that would be very beguiling to you, probably because you had a fire and brimstone religious upbringing and anything that rebels seems anarchic. I'm psychologising of course, I don't know that's true, but it's a best guess. Luckily I never had indoctrination like that, though my father was socialist he never rammed it down our throats so we adopted it more out of familiarity. It made it easy to let it go when the time was right and not feel bruised by it-as Rand surely did coming from Russia. I can see why mild socialists/statists think the way they do-Lerner being a case in point.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Yeah, you understand Objectivism much better than I do so I need be cautious of what I suggest.

 

Morality of man is the root of Nietxsche's philosophy.  That must never be over-looked.  That is why "Beyond Good And Evil" was necessary.

 

It must be said the Nietzsche was a Mystic.  I see that missing in Objectivism.

 

And it is true, Nietzsche's sister's boyfriend was a Nazi and after Nietzsche died his sister and boyfriend misrepresented Nietzsche's philosophy so badly that it appeared to support the Nazi mentality.  This is totally false.  Nietzsche even condemned those who were anti-Jewish.

 

Enlightenment:  Ayn Rand was Jewish!!!  Now her philosophy is more understandable.  And a further understanding why the attachment with Nietzsche.  But she wanted her philosophy to be based in Jewish tradition, not Nietzsche's.

[Karl]

Yeah, you understand Objectivism much better than I do so I need be cautious of what I suggest.

 

Morality of man is the root of Nietxsche's philosophy.  That must never be over-looked.  That is why "Beyond Good And Evil" was necessary.

 

It must be said the Nietzsche was a Mystic.  I see that missing in Objectivism.

 

And it is true, Nietzsche's sister's boyfriend was a Nazi and after Nietzsche died his sister and boyfriend misrepresented Nietzsche's philosophy so badly that it appeared to support the Nazi mentality.  This is totally false.  Nietzsche even condemned those who were anti-Jewish.

 

Enlightenment:  Ayn Rand was Jewish!!!  Now her philosophy is more understandable.  And a further understanding why the attachment with Nietzsche.  But she wanted her philosophy to be based in Jewish tradition, not Nietzsche's.

Yes, morality, but beyond any back check with reality. Mans 'will' as the standard of value. This is completely different than mans life as the standard of value. Will is whim from that stand point, even if we were to substitute 'reason' as the standard of value then no connection is made to reality. Reason becomes a floating abstraction.

 

You mean Jewish religious tradition ? If so, then emphatically not, she would not tolerate any aspect of mysticism, spiritual or material. Morals are not derived from God in some intrinsic sense, neither is man a victim of determinism, not pragmatic whim, not social or societal. Mans life is It's own reason, it is something specific with identity, but it's morals are derived from that value choice of life and must conform in that way, not because someone demands it, or because it was received in some revelation, but because man chooses his life a primary value and must discover how to maintain that life. Ethics are self chosen principles to gain or keep the values that sustain life. It doesn't matter if the man is a prince or a pauper, if he succeeds in gaining values or fails utterly, the hero is not in what he becomes, but in his pure application of those reasoned principles without compromise. This might seem to an outsider as a mandate for religious morality, but it is completely removed from it in ever sense. Each man must discover these morals for himself.

 

If you understood the three treasures as you refer to them, then this makes sense. A man is required to use his mind to reason and to use his body to be independently productive. This does not mean on his own, or that he must contribute to some thing, but that he does, and does for his own sake. That he neither his brothers keeper nor his brother his. This doesn't rule out any form of voluntary association in this respect, but it cannot be expected, forced, or the other person believing they are acting in an altruistic way whilst he takes advantage of it. The contract must be clear. You do this because you want to, not because it is a duty, not because sacrifice to others is a moral principle. If that were the case it must be immediately refused.

[Marblehead]

You mean Jewish religious tradition ?

 

No, I was not referring to the religion.

[Marblehead]

The rest of your post is consistent with Nietzsche's philosophy and my understanding.

[Karl]

No, I was not referring to the religion.

I don't know any other Jewish tradition ? Rand was no fan of racism and objectivism has no racial affiliation.

[Karl]

The rest of your post is consistent with Nietzsche's philosophy and my understanding.

You mean that you see the difference ?

[Marblehead]

I don't know any other Jewish tradition ? Rand was no fan of racism and objectivism has no racial affiliation.

 

Think about it.  The hard work, the economics of life, the conservative mentality.  That's what really pissed many Germans off after WWI.  The Germans couldn't overcome their lose but the Jews ignored the externals and just kept pushing for moral and economic success.

[Marblehead]

You mean that you see the difference ?

 

Yes, I see the difference.  All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

 

Hehehe.  How do you like that?

[Karl]

Yes, I see the difference.  All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.

 

Hehehe.  How do you like that?

At least it doesn't make him a dictator :-) objectivism is about taking the pleasure from values achieved and having respect and pride in the self. That does not mean all work and no play, but the opposite. It says to be serious about the things that are important, don't evade them, pretend they mean nothing, or laugh at the good whilst dismissing the evil through compromise. So, earn yourself a good meal with friends, or a holiday, or buy some music, or have enough food in your belly that you can dance. Celebrate life but on your own efforts, not those of your brother, nor he of yours. There are times to be serious and there are times for fun, make sure one is not eclipsed by the other.

[Karl]

Think about it.  The hard work, the economics of life, the conservative mentality.  That's what really pissed many Germans off after WWI.  The Germans couldn't overcome their lose but the Jews ignored the externals and just kept pushing for moral and economic success.

Rand was a Russian Jew though not German. She wasn't Conservative either, as conservatives by their nature about the status quo. Rand was a serious radical looking for change. So serious was her power that the establishment has sought to completely dismiss her philosophy-as they have with Austrian Economics. Still her books sell and remain one of the greatest sellers of all time.

 

I don't think it's just the Jews that push for moral and economic success, lots of people are self motivated achievers and moralists. I'm not a Jew, my parents weren't Jews, my friends aren't Jews so it doesn't only apply to Jews does it ?

[Marblehead]

Rand was a Russian Jew though not German. She wasn't Conservative either, as conservatives by their nature about the status quo. Rand was a serious radical looking for change. So serious was her power that the establishment has sought to completely dismiss her philosophy-as they have with Austrian Economics. Still her books sell and remain one of the greatest sellers of all time.

 

Yes, but all of her work was done in the USA.  And yes, initially linking herself with Nietzsche was not successful therefore began the criticism of Nietzsche.  I'm not trying to be negative about her or the philosophy, just looking for the causes and effects.  As I mentioned before, it wouldn't be hard for me to make a transition and call myself an Objectivist.

 

I don't think it's just the Jews that push for moral and economic success, lots of people are self motivated achievers and moralists. I'm not a Jew, my parents weren't Jews, my friends aren't Jews so it doesn't only apply to Jews does it ?

 

No, I didn't want to stereotype.  But there were very hard times in Germany between the wars and the world was aware of it.  We Americans were the Objectivists of the world at that time.  We over-did it and crashed but that's beside the point.  Hehehe.

 

 

[Karl]

 

Rand was a Russian Jew though not German. She wasn't Conservative either, as conservatives by their nature about the status quo. Rand was a serious radical looking for change. So serious was her power that the establishment has sought to completely dismiss her philosophy-as they have with Austrian Economics. Still her books sell and remain one of the greatest sellers of all time.

 

Yes, but all of her work was done in the USA.  And yes, initially linking herself with Nietzsche was not successful therefore began the criticism of Nietzsche.  I'm not trying to be negative about her or the philosophy, just looking for the causes and effects.  As I mentioned before, it wouldn't be hard for me to make a transition and call myself an Objectivist.

I don't think it's just the Jews that push for moral and economic success, lots of people are self motivated achievers and moralists. I'm not a Jew, my parents weren't Jews, my friends aren't Jews so it doesn't only apply to Jews does it ?

 

No, I didn't want to stereotype.  But there were very hard times in Germany between the wars and the world was aware of it.  We Americans were the Objectivists of the world at that time.  We over-did it and crashed but that's beside the point.  Hehehe.

 

I thank you for the comment, but I don't see a connection between success and criticism of Nietzsche. Most people buying her novels wouldn't have a clue about the philosophical underpinnings. Certainly the intellectuals were aware, but that's a tiny percentage of the population and few of those, if any, supported Rand's work. She was roundly criticised for lacking intellectual rigour and considered a lightweight who was subsequently smeared to hell. I couldn't have told you anything about the underlying philosophies a year ago, I hadn't a clue about objectivism either until 18 months ago. My philosophy, such that it was being Miseian.

 

The USA was never objectivist, particularly after 1900 when it took on a distinctly statist approach. Indeed it was Rand who warned of the direction it was going later that century. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged you should do so, just because of the accuracy of her predictions, it's uncanny how accurate it is of today's situation. When you look at cities such as Detroit, you don't just see echoes of AS, but incisive descriptions of just such a city.

[Marblehead]

Hey, we're having fun.  Well, at least I am.  I shouldn't speak for you.  You do that pretty well on your own.

 

Ayn apparently did very well for herself all things considered.  And the fact that there exists a philosophy that she presented to the world and has been accepted by many is a feather in her hat.

 

I don't have any serious disagreements with the philosophy.  But then I have no reason to add more labels to the group I already have.

 

Detroit is a lovely example of how to not govern a society.  And it is a lovely example of how people treat things that they don't have to work for.

 

But life goes on and much of Detroit can't even be seen anymore as those areas are over-grown with vegetation.

 

So anyhow, I will hush for a bit and maybe you will get some input from others.

 

(But yes, our discussion has helped me understand you better and therefore understand better your comments in some of the discussions you get involved in.)

[Karl]

Hey, we're having fun.  Well, at least I am.  I shouldn't speak for you.  You do that pretty well on your own.

 

Ayn apparently did very well for herself all things considered.  And the fact that there exists a philosophy that she presented to the world and has been accepted by many is a feather in her hat.

 

I don't have any serious disagreements with the philosophy.  But then I have no reason to add more labels to the group I already have.

 

Detroit is a lovely example of how to not govern a society.  And it is a lovely example of how people treat things that they don't have to work for.

 

But life goes on and much of Detroit can't even be seen anymore as those areas are over-grown with vegetation.

 

So anyhow, I will hush for a bit and maybe you will get some input from others.

 

(But yes, our discussion has helped me understand you better and therefore understand better your comments in some of the discussions you get involved in.)

I thought it might help throw a bit of light into a murky corner regarding some of my comments. Yes, most definitely having fun and I agree there is no need to add labels. Pity that Lerner went all out to shoot the fox as that could have been an interesting conversation. Can't see many here joining in-LOL I reckon I'm just about on everyone's ignore list, so much for my popularity. We are more alike in outlook so it was a safe bet we would be able to hold a discussion, I don't think others are, they are where I was a few years ago so this sort of philosophy is as welcome as a fart in a wet suit.

[Marblehead]

But there are some brave members here who don't mind getting their feet muddy.  You still might get some comments.

 

Yes, our individual philosophies are pretty compatible.

 

There Is no one on my ignore list.  It is my belief that nothing can be resolve if we refuse to talk with each other but instead try to ignore each other.  That's what the Israelis and Palestinians are doing and we can see what they have accomplished.

 

Well, since Ayn plagiarized a lot of Nietzsche's work it was easy for me to accept.  Hehehe.

[Aaron]

Ethics, morality, and capitalism are all forms of low virtue. They will never bring people closer to realization and enlightenment, nor will they create a society that brings peace and contentment. It is these things that actually create the problems in the world we face today. It is only when we give up these laws and live in Te, that we will be able to find peace in our own lives. 

 

Sadly I think society is beyond this, so saving society is beyond our means, the only thing we can do is save ourselves and comfort those few people we come in contact with. So my goal is be compassionate to those around me, to be the kind of person I would want others to be, and to not let emotions take control of my life, but rather be the calm at the center of the storm. It is only by being content that I can bring contentment to others as well. 

[Karl]

Ethics, morality, and capitalism are all forms of low virtue. They will never bring people closer to realization and enlightenment, nor will they create a society that brings peace and contentment. It is these things that actually create the problems in the world we face today. It is only when we give up these laws and live in Te, that we will be able to find peace in our own lives. 

 

Sadly I think society is beyond this, so saving society is beyond our means, the only thing we can do is save ourselves and comfort those few people we come in contact with. So my goal is be compassionate to those around me, to be the kind of person I would want others to be, and to not let emotions take control of my life, but rather be the calm at the center of the storm. It is only by being content that I can bring contentment to others as well.

 

Except you aren't content or you wouldn't be wanting others to be anything other than what they are. You wouldn't think capitalism, ethics, morality were low forms of virtue either. This is one of the first lessons in accepting self as self. There is no way to circumvent the self in the form of being a 'contented discontent'. It is pretending to be something you are not. You can either choose to remain ignorant, become an evader, or use reason to become a moral man.

 

You are correct to say that 'society is beyond saving' but there is no society, there are individuals of which you are one. It is therefore the ONLY thing you can do is act as an individual. You are infact acting for self, you are being consciously selfish. That's a good start, but only if you acknowledge it.

 

What brings people to enlightenment is the realisation that they are and must act from the position of the rational self, the question then becomes-what should I do ? What principles should I live by ? (Which is the science of ethics). Capitalism, values and morals aren't a panacea, they are just concepts until grounded in reality and defined by reality. Capitalism as defined by the state is not capitalism at all-this is deliberate evasion or ignorance, as is the Marxian definition.

 

Our minds are are ONLY tools of survival. In order to survive we must apply reason. Coercive Force is the antithesis of reason, the antithesis of the mind and therefore the antithesis of survival and life. However, drifting, acting deliberately ignorant, failing to apply reason properly, evading or surrendering the mind is an invitation for those who are prepared to use force to win. By not acting from the position of rational selfishness the good dies and evil survives.

 

Now, if you are evading, or perhaps you are innocently ignorant of the truth, then you are unaware that you have left open the gate and a Tiger is eating your food and mauling your loved ones.