Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Um, I'm Scott Schiff, substituting for Atlas society, CEO, Jennifer Grossman. Thank you for joining us today. Uh, we are very pleased to have Atlas society, founder, David Kelly. Uh, this is an ask me anything. So, uh, you know, I have some questions that come in from Instagram and other channels. Uh, of course we invite anyone with a question up to the stage and, uh, you know, honestly I could probably come up with questions, uh, for you myself for an hour, but, uh, we, we do want this to be interactive. So if you'd like to join, please raise your hand. Um, David, I'm just gonna go ahead and, uh, you know, start with one of the, uh, Instagram questions. Uh, this is from, uh, DeLong 89 and it's, uh, how does an objectivist know if they are being completely rational?
Speaker 1 00:01:00 Oh, that's a great question. Um, the, I think there's no simple answer because, uh, for one thing, rationality is a matter of, uh, uh, choice in the choice to focus and, um, uh, to be objective that is to focus yourself on facts, but we are also not just minds, but we are living things with emotions and desires and goals that in some times, um, you know, interfere with our, um, rationality in for example, um, we have a viewpoint. Um, there's a fact of the fact in the world that is really uncomfortable or painful to consider. And so we have the capacity to it. They did, and, uh, the motivation to do that as well. And so being rational means being as alert as possible to the, uh, non rational factors that may be operating in a given situation that you're in, whether it's a, uh, a practical choice, a decision you're making a bet your life, or whether it's a intellectual issue where you're, you've been committed to a set of ideas for a long time, and then you, your, um, evidence or arguments that weigh against it and you have to consider them, or you can shut them out.
Speaker 1 00:02:52 So rationality is partly a matter of will of choice, but it requires an alertness to also the compromising factors that can interfere with rationality. And, you know, no two people are the same this way. Um, we have different temperaments, different situations, different histories, uh, different problems that we've encountered and may have that may include psychological problems. So that alertness, it's hard to specify in detail, but, um, that's what, that's what practice of rationality over time means. I would also add that rationality is also a skill involving the ability to weigh evidence. Um, uh, being logical logic is a skill. I'm a logic teacher, and I know that it's, uh, it's a learned ability. And so acquiring this skill and expanding one's skill and knowledge is a part of rationality in objectivism. Um, and so it's kind of an ongoing, ongoing, um, project of value, uh, reason is it valued in objectivism?
Speaker 1 00:04:19 It's not just the virtue of practicing rationality. It's developing your own mind, your reasoning and your ability, expanding your ability to be, uh, to be rational is a lifelong project. Just it's part of being alive and pursuing your own happiness. So, um, one thing, however I would caution against is self-imposed guilt, um, especially retrospective guilt, about a bad decision you might've made or a bad choice you might've made when in the context it was not. Maybe you didn't know something now you do well, don't go back and blame yourself for something you didn't know at the time. So just be as open as possible about the world, the world's out there is your friend is not your enemy. Reality is not your enemy. Um, and, but you are not your enemy either. Uh, so I'll leave it there. Scott
Speaker 0 00:05:36 That's fair. Right? It's a huge question that just like you said, it was a good question. I thought it was good from the listener. So, uh, at least one of to start off with something substantive. Um, not that they're all not substantive, but, uh, let's, uh, we've got some people up in the audience, so, uh, let's just start, uh, you know, going with some live questions,
Speaker 2 00:05:56 Roger so much for joining us today. Yeah. Hey, uh, here's a question for David. I post this to others and I'd love to get your take on this. Um, one of the more popular public intellectuals these days is Jordan Peterson, and I've read his books and I've heard his lectures. And I find him to be interesting on certain topics, but one of the things that he says that I disagree with, um, but I, I still have a hard time rejecting him holistically. Cause I do like some of the things he has to say is when he talks about pursuing what is meaningful versus what makes you happy. And when I think of like, I know there's a difference between, um, uh, you know, uh, uh, you know, just, just a temporal pleasure, but, but happiness is this thing that Aristotle talked about and ran talks about quite a bit. And I'd love to get your, your position when it comes to this idea that Peterson paints out, which is that if you pursue what is meaningful, that is more important than, uh, than those things that make you happy. Uh, if you, if you have any thoughts on that, I'd love to hear your perspective on it.
Speaker 1 00:07:04 Oh, the great question, Roger, thank you. That, and I do have thoughts on that because I think the false dichotomy, um, if, if Peterson and I'm not familiar with this aspect of his thinking, um, I have to admit that upfront, but the, uh, if he means by happiness, just pleasure, momentary pleasure. That is not, as you said, that's not the air and it's not the objectivist view. Happiness is a state of satisfaction in one's life, over a longer term. And, uh, it is about a siren in the background where I'm in the middle of Washington DC. Um, happiness is, uh, by contrast with pleasure, pleasure is momentary. Happiness is longer term, but also more importantly, happiness involves having meaningful goals that give meaning to your life. So the pursuit of meaning and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate things we what's meaningful to us is the pursuit of purposes in our lives.
Speaker 1 00:08:17 And those purposes can be involved with adoption work or, um, objectivism. That's a pretty central purpose, but also relationships love family, um, include civic engagement, um, at a range of other things where the, the, um, the result of pursuing meaning and succeeding, um, in achieving was meaningful to you is the very source of happiness, happiness. Um, you know, uh, definition is the consequence of achieving, uh, pursuing and achieving your values and values are what you've liked meaning. So I, I would reject the, uh, the kind of premise on the question. Does that get to your point,
Speaker 0 00:09:15 Roger?
Speaker 2 00:09:18 Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't know if you guys can hear me, but know that, that, that was precisely what I wanted to hear. Um, I I've asked that question and you gave me exactly what it was, so I'll reflect on that in this conversation.
Speaker 1 00:09:38 Thanks for Azure.
Speaker 0 00:09:40 Appreciate that. Uh, let's just go right down the line while we've got people here, Lawrence,
Speaker 3 00:09:45 Hello, my company through quiet or
Speaker 0 00:09:47 Maybe a hair quiet, but it's not terrible.
Speaker 3 00:09:51 Okay. So my question is, uh, sort of talks on, we spoke last week about sort of religion as a primitive form of philosophy and sort of, you know, the way man has tried to describe the world around him, how they should conduct themselves. And this seems to be a universal across the world, no matter where you go. And it made me think sort of a, I guess, more of an anthropological perspective as we've advanced and come into what we would like to think is a more in age of reason, we have seen people move away from religion, but seemingly not towards reason. And they come up with these sort of non theistic religions. What I would argue sort of like how people act when it comes to what you could say, like the church of wokeness. And I'm curious, what would your take on that be? Is it more so that there's just been a failure of education to crime people to use their reason, or is there something more fundamental there?
Speaker 1 00:11:02 Uh, another great and complicated question. Um, let me make a couple points that may address this, uh, I'm Rand. And I think most Objectivists, uh, despite our disagreement with the supernatural beliefs of religion and the moral code, um, of sacrifice that many religions preach, nevertheless, regarded as providing people with a framework for life and human beings need that they need to know because of our nature, our rational nature, and the fact that we can see ourselves in part of a much larger world. And we also see our lives as having a beginning and an end. Um, we can assist debate and so questions about life after death and all, all those things come up. Religion provides a framework. It's not fully rational, but it's at least a framework. And so that's why ran called the remitter version of philosophy. It serves, it serves or addresses certain actual, real human cognitive needs or that framework and for a coherent moral code.
Speaker 1 00:12:29 The reason I think that, um, in moving away from religion and, uh, do the exempt that it's happening, our culture has not produced, you know, complete acceptance of reason is a couple of things. One is religion in the 19th, in the philosophers in the 19th, 20th century in the west, did not, uh, pick up on the enlightenments, um, late 18th century, um, confidence in reason. And in many ways, um, there was a counter reformation, a counter enlightenment that taught new forms of irrationality, new systems of subjectivism and, uh, faith. And so we got things like in our own day or recent decades, new-agey stuff, um, people sign on to conspiracy theories, um, as another example, and they don't, they just, they're not really taught or encouraged to, um, think it in a fully rational way and fully conceptual way.
Speaker 1 00:13:54 And so that's more of a, uh, a result of bad philosophy than of, uh, religion per se, but also another factor is that religion taught altruism and that his sacrifice and nobility of sacrifice, and that has persisted in all kinds of secular forms, uh, that the, uh, socialist movement was based on the altruism of sacrificing for the good of the country or the working class or whatever. Now we have environmental realism, which bridges in sacrifice for the good of the environment and that idea of self-interest as evil versus sacrifices good has, has, um, has a secular form. It may, its roots may be in religion, but it has persisted despite and in many other forms than religion. So, um, that's why we have, uh, that's that's w Lawrence, I think that's why we're seeing the front, I'm going to use a scribe. I will say though, that one of the paradoxes is that at least in Western countries in the us, especially people do tend to have, uh, an individualist streak.
Speaker 1 00:15:23 Uh, they seek wellbeing in their lives. They, um, uh, have, you know, they, they, they wanted a good living. They don't, they're not embarrassed by money or up to a certain point anyway. And so they work at, you know, fully rational way in their, in their jobs. I mean, think of the, just all the technology we have, all the medicines, including the vaccine COVID vaccines that were developed in an amazing, an amazing speed. Those were works of incredible rationality, but some of the people who, who, uh, achieved those beats of rationality in their, uh, uh, in their work, then going home and, you know, go to church meetings or to ladder society meetings or whatever, you know, non rational thing. They appeals to them as, as providing their ethics, their spiritual life and so forth. Um, it's, it's a, it's a very mixed situation.
Speaker 0 00:16:34 Very interesting. Thank you. Great. Thanks, David. Uh, Dana, do you have a question for Dr. Kelly? Are you, are you there Dana? All right. Well, I think we'll move to Roger Hunt and see if, uh, Dana comes back in a minute.
Speaker 4 00:16:59 All right. Dan has jumped in, uh, right. Uh, uh, I guess you talked about rationality a lot and that first question kicked into it, and now I can't stop thinking about it. And all right. So here's my question. When you were talking about rationality, you added a lot of stuff that might be ethics, like, you know, uh, developing a skill, holding yourself accountable. Um, and I was wondering if you could put yourself in, in maybe a little dialogue with a group that would say, you know, rationality is just making sure you've got your subjects and verbs all in the right order and you're making, you know, you're quote unquote making sense. Um, and so the question is why, why do we have to add w why should we add all that extra stuff above and beyond the, uh, sort of pragmatic getting your, your words in the right place that I probably didn't even do with that? Okay, thanks.
Speaker 1 00:17:57 Well, let, let me make sure I understand the question. Um, Roger, the, you know, rationality means, uh, you were describing kind of verbal competence, um, in, in being able to speak coherently, um, which is a practical skill and an aspect of, right. I mean, it's a, it's a function of the rational faculty that we have language and language is, you know, works only when you, you know, put sentences together, coherently. That's just one, one particular form of it. But rationale when he means exercising your mind to grasp reality as it is to make your conclusions and your decisions based on what you observed in the world and what you infer from it by logical rational. Not that now many there, I will. I want to mention one of the things that in, in, um, in economics, there is, um, a concept of rationality as doing, uh, maximizing utility, doing, doing what it takes to, uh, figuring out how to get what you want.
Speaker 1 00:19:19 And often the, uh, the idea is that what you want is a matter of your emotions and desires, which is, are not rational. The whole function of reason is, uh, to figure out the means of satisfying those, uh, desires. Uh, this goes back to what was made famous by David Hume, uh, 18th century philosopher, who said, you know, reason is an Octa be a slave of the passions. We need just an instrument for, uh, uh, achieving something, but not applicable. Rationality is not an applicable to the ends of goals, the values we see, and that is not what objectivism means by it. Rationality as the exercise of your cognitive ability to, um, use reason to acquire knowledge and to make choices requires that you be rational about moral values as well, moral issues, what's good in life. Um, what virtues, what principles of action should I go by in order to achieve a happy, happy life, which also includes, um, understanding that happiness includes good relationships with other people, not for purposes of sacrifice, but for purposes of conducting trade learning from other people, having a good week having, you know, satisfying, healthy relationship. So I, uh, I sense that the issue you're raising has to do with what is sometimes called instrumental rationality, just as a tool, um, but not as an all comprehensive means of living.
Speaker 4 00:21:14 Yeah. And so the question is, uh, you know, I'm on the street talking to Joe, Hey, come, come be, uh, come be in, uh, you know, come be an objectivist, come be and come be a Randian. Right. Um, and you know, uh, I've got to give them a reason for why rationality, which is like the virtue of objectivism. I, I think, um, w why it has to encompass all those other things, which could be considered distinct or, or for, for other, you know, BP, something else, rather than combined all into this one thing. So I guess you, you, you laid out the two positions, so, um, and maybe I'm asking way too much here for, from you, but well, you know, why choose the one where it's all combined into one thing, rather than the one words, you know, split up into distinct features that you can, you know, do what you can do with decomposed, um, properties. Okay.
Speaker 1 00:22:12 Well, I guess the reason is that, um, you know, rationality involves a lot of different components, as I was saying in answer to Scott, the original question. And, um, and you could break it down and focus on one at a time. Like, as I said, I'm a logic teacher. So I'm teaching logic, I'm, I'm helping my students understand, for example, how to define a concept or how to evaluate, uh, an inference. But, um, but the reason that rationality is an all encompassing thing is that if you peel something off from rationality, some aspect of life or some kind of issue, you're not using reason, what are you using emotions, faith, reliance on some authority, those are not rational. And if someone is doing that, then I have to ask, why do you think that's a reliable way of acquiring knowledge or making decisions? And there's no answer to that. I mean, reason is the tool we use, even in the value, in the scope of reason versus any other method of firing.
Speaker 0 00:23:29 I was just going to say a reason, uh, asking the reason why, uh, kind of almost assumes the value of rationality.
Speaker 4 00:23:40 I will stop after this next follow-up.
Speaker 5 00:23:45 So one option, they would be like method, right? So rather than combining it all into rationality and saying that, well, you know, I can be rational in there, maybe putting together my acceptances, maybe I can even be rational about ethics, but then when it comes to discovering, um, a fact, uh, I rely on a method rather than a rationality. I imagine you'd say, well, the method itself has to be rational, but you know, other people might disagree with that. Um, so if you want address, that's great. If not, I totally understand that. Maybe it's not an issue.
Speaker 0 00:24:18 Thanks, Roger. Uh, David, do you have more to say, or can we, uh, no, let's move on. Okay. Dana, thank you for your patience. You appear to be un-muted now.
Speaker 6 00:24:35 Yeah. So I got rid of all the operator errors. Uh, um, it seems to me like that psychology is driving towards, uh, uh, establishing a set of factors that are in deterministic in terms of behavior. And we know that there's lots of evidence for personality and predispositions for certain behaviors. Uh, but I still want to believe in free will, but I want objective proof of free will. And, uh, question is how do I get that? I don't want to be, I don't want to do it through introspection because that, uh, throws it back into the realm of pseudoscience and non objectivity. So, uh, help me design an experiment that will show that people do have free will.
Speaker 1 00:25:37 Okay. Um, I hear again, I need to question the assumptions here because, um, I think free will is self evident. Um, fact, if we examine our thinking and we are, can be directly aware of the choice to focus in on a fact or evaded, uh, the choice of how much, how clear our focus is on a given issue, uh, and what whether to allow or not allow your rational factors to influence our thinking. So just as you know, in the theory of objectivism, there are certain axioms or axiomatic things that we observed directly. We observe directly that things exist, that whatever exists has identity and that we are conscious. And I would say, um, that those, those things that are self-evident, um, what self-evidence means is that they are, uh, directly available to, um, our, our immediate awareness.
Speaker 1 00:27:06 Now, w we put them into words and as axioms, but it's really the direct observation. So you said you didn't want to rely on introspection, and I know that in psychology, um, and this may be the, uh, historical or the, you know, the context you're, you're thinking of, uh, people have, uh, discounted introspection as a method. Um, and in, in favor of, um, third party experimentations, where you have a subject, you have an experimenter and you, you create a task and then you, um, that's designed to show one thing or another, and then you see what the results are, but that would never work for free will because whatever the outcome of the experiment is, there's, there will always be two interpretations. One is that the person, uh, was influenced by the factors you provided. And some people will be, and, um, others will not be influenced by those, or will be influenced, but we'll re consider and say, no, that's, that's not going to cover my decision.
Speaker 1 00:28:31 So I think you have to include, um, the inner direct awareness perspective, if you will, um, as a source of valid evidence, I also want to say that there's a longstanding, um, uh, philosophical fact about things that aren't axiomatic is that they cannot be denied without self-contradiction. Uh, for example, if I say, if I say nothing exists, well, that statement by the N existing person, myself contradicts the content of what I'm saying. There's no, nothing exists. That's too obvious. But in the case of freewill, there's, there's a long-standing argument or consideration. The contradiction of Herman is that if you are advocating determinism and giving an argument for it, that I can always ask you, you think that argument is valid and, or were you just expressing that argument because you were determined by antecedent factors like your breathing, your situation, or your hormones, or brain rain or whatever. Um, and if you can't answer, no, I thought of, I thought about this. I really weighed the issues and I've come out on the side of determinism, but you got there without any ability to choose whether, to wha how do weigh the evidence and whether you accept it or not is incompatible with the determinist thesis you put forward.
Speaker 1 00:30:27 Now, I don't consider that an argument. Well, I think the main point is the interest director wins, but it's, it's kind of a confirmation.
Speaker 6 00:30:36 Um, so, okay. So you're saying that determinism, that the idea of determinism is self-contradictory.
Speaker 1 00:30:46 Yes. Okay. The idea at the expression of the assertion of the idea is self-confidence because it's not Habbo with the, the content of the assertion is not compatible with the fact that you're asserting it as true.
Speaker 0 00:31:05 Okay. Well, uh, Dana, thank you for that. I do want to get, uh, Karthik in here and, um, you know, w if anyone else has a question, you're welcome to come up on the stage. We do have some others from Instagram and other channels as well. Uh, Karthik, thank you for your patience.
Speaker 7 00:31:26 Uh, a silly question is relationships are really necessary in life.
Speaker 0 00:31:33 Can you say that one more time
Speaker 7 00:31:36 Is the relationship is really has a city in life.
Speaker 1 00:31:45 I'm sorry. I couldn't really hear that
Speaker 0 00:31:49 Closer to the Mike. No, I can hear you better. Yes.
Speaker 7 00:31:56 Yeah. Easily relationship is really necessary in life.
Speaker 0 00:32:02 Our relationships really necessary in life. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:32:09 Okay. Well, uh, human beings are individuals and, uh, it's conceivable that, you know, the proverbial man on a desert island could survive, uh, produce what he needed, find food and so forth, but human beings are social animals. If you understand social animals in the proper sense that we gain huge amounts from relationships, um, just starting with the economic, we, you know, we all benefit from trade within an economy based on the division of labor. We're all much, much better off, um, punching and that kind of environment, um, in terms of wealth and prosperity and safety than we would be on a desert island, but there's also the emotional needs. I think an objectivism, one of the, one of the values, uh, for example, is romantic love. And there's a reason why that is a strong desire, um, and a, a valid and important value for human beings.
Speaker 1 00:33:29 In that it, it provides us with a, uh, a kind of access to our own person. The Aerostar once said the, you know, the friend is a mirror of yourself, but you see things in a mirror that you can't see when you're not looking in the mirror. That is people. Uh, if someone who knows and loves you for what you are, can bring out and make you aware of things about yourself that you experienced, that you otherwise would experience only internally, but it, it, it makes it, it it's an important value in, um, uh, one's sense of one's own identity, which is something you need very much in order to, um, have the strength and, um, direction to lead a happy life. There's a lot of psychology behind what I'm saying. And so I can't summarize it all here, but I think, uh, relationships so quick answer to the question, uh, kind of like is you're radically relationships are not essential in the way that food and air are essential human life, but they are so important in making life better that, uh, I would consider them genuine human needs.
Speaker 0 00:35:06 That's good stuff. Uh, yeah, the fact that it's considered torture in some places for solitary confinement is probably some indication of being seen as universal, uh, James, welcome to the stage. Thank you. Uh, do you have,
Speaker 8 00:35:23 Thank you. Yes, I do. Uh, Dr. Kelly, thank you so much for taking my question. Can you hear me all right?
Speaker 1 00:35:31 I can, yes.
Speaker 8 00:35:33 I, uh, I was wondering somewhere in one of his righty. I don't have at hand right now, uh, Daniel, Brandon said something along the lines that he knew, which things had been proved in which things hadn't in objectivism. Uh, you think if indeed, you agree with him,
Speaker 1 00:36:02 Um, that is another wow, really interesting question. Um, let me, let me come at it a bit indirectly some years ago, uh, I developed a, uh, a system of outlining the objectivist philosophy in terms of logical diagrams. Um, argument diagrams are commonly used in logic books showing what are the premises that lead to this conclusion? What are the premises?
Speaker 8 00:36:34 I have a copy of it actually,
Speaker 1 00:36:36 Uh, the logical structure of objectivism,
Speaker 8 00:36:39 The, which never came out in print most wittingly.
Speaker 1 00:36:46 I'm sorry. We, we tried many times to interest a publisher, Gooden, uh,
Speaker 8 00:36:53 Self publishing
Speaker 1 00:36:55 And yeah, well that maybe that that's a more
Speaker 8 00:37:00 Collaborate with you, happy to collaborate with you on that if you're interested.
Speaker 1 00:37:06 Okay. Well, yeah, I ventured and following up on that with you, James. Um, but the, uh, in that book, but we tried to do was to say, you know, what is the evidence for each of the main theses of objectivism, both the, uh, the evidence that comes from more fundamental principles, and then at each stage, what is the inductive evidence that we get from observation and from history psychology and other vertical fields. And there were cases where, um, we felt, yeah, this needs more attention. There's a, there's, we're not sure about exactly. Is this a, is this argument fully, um, fully strong? You know, overall I would say, you know, objectivism is a remarkably integrated and well-supported philosophy, but it's an entire system of philosophy. And for reasons that I am interested, uh, one of my goals as a philosopher who's, you know, was all my life.
Speaker 1 00:38:19 I've been an objectivist, but it's been a foundation and a realm in which I wanted to explore and deepen and, and see checking is this is it, is this point and really established, is there nothing you can say against it? And I think there's a bunch of room or, uh, elaborating and fully more fully explaining, uh, or justifying providing evidence for a number of points. And I I've done some of that in my own work. Others have done that Daniel Brennan himself. I think it really expanded period of self-esteem. Um, so it's not so much that there are, that you put it. I want to qualify this a little bit by saying whether, whether a thesis of, of philosophical soar is proven or not is, is, it's not an opener shut question. Like you ask about, you know, is this math group sound, if it is you're done in, in philosophy and in many other fields, uh, evidence accumulates, and sometimes, you know, you learn new things that say, well, okay, now I understand more fully why this is true, or I need, I understand that it needs to be qualified in certain ways. Um, and it's an ongoing process. So, uh, I don't know, I'm not committed with the, uh, Brandon's statement. I can't remember seeing that or hearing it from him, um, on that point. So I, I'm just saying what I think from my experience, but I am, I'm delighted to know that you've, uh, you've got a copy of the logical structure it's on our website, by the way, if anyone wants to look for it, just search on logical structure of objectivism.
Speaker 0 00:40:26 Well, a new reading there. And, uh, again, we want to invite anyone up to the stage. That has a question. Uh,
Speaker 8 00:40:34 Um, I just have one last point. I would just say that I hardly endorsed that. I think everyone here would be very interested by the logical structure of objectivism. And if I might just ask one last followup before you move on, it is just, if you, do you recall which areas just under the covers amongst friends, you thought were the shakiest or the most need of additional work?
Speaker 1 00:41:03 Um, there are a couple of various, um, the, uh, in my field, the epistemology, I think one issue that, um, I don't feel has been thoroughly established. Those is the idea of certainty w under what conditions and, um, can we claim to be certain of a certain conclusion, obviously that there's pretty close relationship your question? Um, because
Speaker 8 00:41:44 No, I think that's very good. Yes. And whether you can be certain and wrong.
Speaker 1 00:41:48 Yes. And that's another one, right? So, I mean, that's part of that, that whole, like, there's no logical mix. Another one, um, that we've tried to, to address, um, at the outlet society, Randy did not write much about the ethics of families. And I wouldn't be, I don't think we mentioned that very much in the logical structure book, but that's an important part of a lot of people's lives. And it raises some unique questions because, um, you know, most of the objective Siri about, uh, interpersonal relationships has to do with, uh, chosen relationships, friends, lovers, and trading partners, but, uh, families, you know, you don't choose your parents and parents don't quite choose their children. They choose whether to have them, but not what they end up with. So, um, there, there are some other considerations here that I think we've only begun to, to appreciate and analyze.
Speaker 8 00:42:53 Well, thank you for those.
Speaker 0 00:42:59 Thank you for that. Um, yes. So, uh, again, anyone is welcome to the stage. If you have a question you want to raise your hand, I'm going to go back. Uh, they still were some interesting ones on across the different channels that came in from Atlas society fans. Uh, this one may be a little bit related, um, in your opinion, how is objectivism different from narcissism and hedonism?
Speaker 1 00:43:28 Uh, like night and day, um, narcissism is, uh, I mean, technically it's a psychological, uh, uh, not psychosis, but neurosis. Um, sometimes it's psychosis. It is, it is a, um, uh, a deep disruption in one sense of confidence in himself. It, and it, uh, it, you normally can base in, uh, in inner sense of absence that has to be supplemented or, um, substituted by some kind of, um, constant affirmation from other people, uh, which is not, which is pretty much the polar opposite of the objective is a virtue and ideal independence. Uh, Hayden ism is maybe a little less inimical, but hidden ism is the view. It leaves as an ethical theory that the measure of what's good and bad is what yields pleasure, uh, or avoid pain and pain and pleasure or happiness and suffering. Um, if you want to use those terms are not, are not a criteria for value.
Speaker 1 00:45:01 We feel happy about the things when we achieve, um, sort of, we feel happy when we achieve the things that we value, but then Wyndham has to come first, if you are a sadist and you value pain causing pain and other people that may provide, you know, uh, Dominic satisfaction to you, but it's irrational. And I mean, it, when it's psychologically based, it's, it's a psychological problem, uh, disruption, something wrong with you. But if, um, so we can't go by, um, simply what gives people pleasure. I mean, I mentioned sadism, that's a standard standard classroom example, but a lot of people who like power and love to get, um, their, um, their joy from wielding power of others, there are people who love to be prominent and famous celebrities and get lots of love and attention people. I ran wrote about all of these types of characters in the fountain near to especially, and why they were, um, uh, you know, unlike Howard Roark, they all came to grief, um, because that is not a, uh, they weren't that they were relying on their emotions essentially to guide their lives instead of on their reasoning and their long term goals.
Speaker 1 00:46:33 So objectivism is not hedonism. It is, uh, it is, as I was saying before, and answer your earlier question, it, it does aim at the happiness. Uh, if we consider happiness as, uh, achievement and satisfaction over a lifetime, not momentary pleasure,
Speaker 0 00:46:58 What some people might do is misuse definitions of the philosophy where for, you know, for their they're disregarding their long-term self-interest, but they say, oh, I'm being selfish about this,
Speaker 1 00:47:14 Right. Well, that, that's another, I think, confusion, uh, identifying selfishness with, um, immediate pleasure, um, especially material pleasures, uh, money, sex, uh, you know, gluttony, whatever, and the, um, and disregard of the longer term consequences, like a hangover, whatever. So, um, you know, human life is just, I mean, again, I'm hitting on a theme of rationality. We don't, we live in a moment that is at any moment. We are where we are right now, but our minds can grasp that we have a past, we have a future and we're headed for the future and we have goals and aims, and that's, that is as important as, um, stopping to smell the flowers right now.
Speaker 0 00:48:22 Good stuff. Thank you for that. Now I've got sirens behind me, a William. Thank you for your patience.
Speaker 9 00:48:29 Yes. Hello. Hi, David. Um, I have maybe a kind of weird question about rights, individual rights. I have reentered the abortion debate with some anti-abortion Rand fans, and I'm bringing up the issue that the bay, the fetus has a brain and brain activity and conscious awareness, or maybe like sensory awareness. And they're saying that makes it a person or less like a, someone that potentially has rights. And so the issue I'm tackling with is the fact that you have one, one body, the mother with the fetus, but two brains in that body. And this reminds me of like the problem of Siamese twins, where there's a one body and two brains, and then they're fighting over control. Um, what do you make of this problem? And do you think it's important in regard to individual rights?
Speaker 1 00:49:39 Um, well, first of all, I appreciate that, uh, abortion is, um, is a morally complicated issue and politically complicated issue because it's not a case of my rights being and mother's rights being, you know, like welfare state was going to take is going to tax her to pay for someone else. Who's a recipient. No, this is, uh, the claim of a funeral rights versus the mother's rights use rights versus, right. So it needs, it needs, we need to do to get within the framework of individual rights. I would say that the mothers, uh, uh, the mother's rights are, are, you know, decisive until the point of birth, because the, um, as long as the fetus depends on her, or it's sustenance, it's life, it's not an independent entity. And the whole idea of individualism, uh, of, uh, the, you know, every individual is in the end and in himself applies to two people, human beings who are at least physically independent, which is not the case. Now we get into, we get into an area here. Uh, so, so I, I would say that Trump's in the argument about what the stage of development in the fetus, um, briefly as it becomes, um, are signs of conscious awareness and, and, and pleasure, uh, and so forth.
Speaker 9 00:51:33 That's kind kinda my thinking as well. It's more about the independence or the dependence of the fetus on the mother. Not only just in, um, the fact that she feeds the baby, uh, the fluids to keep it alive, but the baby is not breathing its own air. It's not, it's not actually using its core functions to survive,
Speaker 1 00:51:59 Right? And it's not using its, uh, its mind to governor's actions in the same way that even a newborn does, um, primitive and helpless as the newborn may be independent and dependent, but in different sense from nurturing. I mean, one thing I I'd want to want to stress here is that, you know, birth is a biological fact, the development, this is how it wouldn't beings like other animals come into existence and you can't argue with facts, facts are facts. So we have to make our philosophy. We have to make the best interpretation we can. And if we take a theory of individual rights that is developed basically for how adults relate to each other, well, you can extend that back and make modifications as to earlier stages. Um, um, for example, I would say that that once a baby's born, it has a right to life, but does not have a full right to Liberty or property.
Speaker 1 00:53:12 Um, parents still have, are more lean titled to, I think they're obligated to feed, to feed and care for the baby, but also to, uh, uh, they have, you know, the responsibility of, um, guiding it until it can make its own decisions. The person, the young young person can make his or her own decisions about. Um, and the mind is developed far enough to do that, but so rights are, um, you know, the objective series of rights is that it depends on human nature and human nature develops over time. That's just a fact of nature. Um, and so we have to adjust our, our concepts that were, uh, like a concept of rights that was developed in a certain context based on the needs of adults, uh, the adult human nature to, um, as best we can adapt it. But I think that I agree with the dependence issue is the, uh, is the key one, but I don't want to leave this issue of that, you know, trying to counter any sense of, uh, I don't know, hardheartedness I think the vast majority of women, uh, and parents do fathers do have babies because they want them, they, they care about them.
Speaker 1 00:54:50 There is nature has also instilled certain desires in us that are pretty natural of caring, nurturing, and, um, it's so I think it is both a woman's right, but also a kind of tragedy. If she gets to the point of feeling, I must end this and this life within me.
Speaker 0 00:55:13 Fair distinction. I appreciate that. Uh, George, I've seen you in the healthy debates with Roger. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 10 00:55:23 My pleasure. Um, can you hear me okay?
Speaker 1 00:55:28 Yep.
Speaker 10 00:55:29 Fantastic. Um, okay. So what prompted me to come up was when you started talking about sadism and max masochism, and I must be one or both of those, because I find myself championing the cause of capitalism in communist and socialist rooms and,
Speaker 1 00:55:53 You know,
Speaker 10 00:55:53 Trying to sharpen the saw and constantly getting booted out of the rooms. Um, but you know what I find it does Dr. Kelly's it kinda like when I get backed into a corner for something maybe I hadn't thought about then, okay. Then I'm up all night thinking about it. And so they stumped me with one thing and I wanted to run it by you. So the situation came up where there was an imaginary scenario where you're in the middle of the Sahara and you, and there's a no waste, this and some sheep owns the Oasis. Does he have a right to prevent because he owns it, it's his property to prevent some traveler who's dying of thirst. Does he have a moral, right? Or is he in the right to prevent that person from taking a drink of water?
Speaker 1 00:56:50 Well, here's another case where we are trying to apply the theory of rights to, um, uh, uh, a situation, uh, somewhat outside the realm of where normally it would apply because, um, the idea of property rights is bound up with the idea of trade and, um, not, not, you can own property and not be interested in grade and keep answering.
Speaker 10 00:57:18 What was that second word? I'm sorry. I didn't hear own property, not be interested in what
Speaker 1 00:57:22 In trade people. Um, however, um, the reason that rights work within an economy there, why they have good results in a capitalist system is that if I want to get, you have a supply of water and I'm thirsty and you don't want to sell it or give it to me, there's other places I can get water here. We've created a situation where there isn't. So now we have to ask is this is this context of the, a waste, this, um, and rare travelers who just stumbled into it, uh, uh, normal within the context of the normal situations, uh, to which the concept of rights applies. You know, if there are many scenarios and had been, these have been debated in Objectivists, uh, um, circles, libertarian circles for a long time, you know, you're, you're caught in a blizzard and you come across a cabin that where you can get take shelter, but the person doesn't want to do it.
Speaker 1 00:58:49 Um, look at the end of the day, your life is the most important thing to you. If you're in a situation where it is impossible to respect rights by not exercising, any use of force, then you may need to use force. It's a lifeboat situation, right? Where the conditions, uh, or, or, uh, you know, a raging fire when you've gotten a building, uh, you to do what you can do, survive yourself and get back to a normal situation. So, but before I would answer that question, I would say, what is the traveler doing out in the desert without enough water? What was he thinking? How did he know, did he, did he, did he know where this avoidance was? Was he counting on the Oasis gate to provide water? Why, you know what, I just hate these thought experiments where people come up with a bizarre situation and drop the context of how that situation occurred.
Speaker 10 01:00:02 No, Dr. Kelly, just so you know, I actually didn't answer it. I flipped it on him and I said, Hey, so if you, so, um, if I own a lake, uh, you know, that connects to a river, do I have, are you telling me I don't have the right to build a dam? And of course, you know, he, he wouldn't answer that. So we ended up not answering each other's questions, but I understand the, the person who's traveling that he would have to resort to force, right. Because, you know, moral system is about the survival of the individual form as it doesn't interfere with somebody else's rights. I get that. What, um, Trump would, Trump me was, if I myself were the owner, of course I would let the guy have water, but I'm just saying the owner there's does. I mean, in relation to him, how would you answer it?
Speaker 1 01:01:02 Well, okay. That's, uh, that's great because that's the other part of the context. Why is this, uh, Oasis owner not willing to give a give or at least sell water? Um, what kind of craziness is that? I mean, you, you have to have a pretty pessimistic view of human nature to think that, um,
Speaker 10 01:01:26 Some socialists for you,
Speaker 0 01:01:28 Sorry to break this up, but, uh, and feel free to make a last point, Dr. Kelly, but we are, uh, at the top bottom of the hour.
Speaker 1 01:01:37 Oh, I'm sorry. Well, well, thanks. Thanks everyone for these great questions. Um, I'm sorry. I couldn't get to everyone. Um, and, uh, I have, uh, I moved to back. I do one of these every month, so I hope to see all of you again, and thank you, Scott, for, um, you're able management.
Speaker 0 01:01:59 Absolutely. This has been a great session with some good questions. Uh, I'm just going to say quickly tonight at 8:00 PM, about 90 minutes from now, uh, Richard Saltzman will be hosting his series, morals and markets, uh, which, uh, central bank digital currencies. What's the point? That seems a pretty interesting that's on the Atlas society.org. Anyway, uh, thank you again for joining us. I'm Scott Schiff for the Atlas society. Um, and we hope to see you next time. Thank you.
