I am my own highest value and you should be yours.

Gina Gorlin | Deeper Connection Through Mutual Selfishness

Deeper Connection Through Mutual Selfishness This talk integrates the moral perspective offered by Rand’s “trader principle” with psychological tools and insights for improving assertive communication. Attendees will learn how skills such as reflective listening, the “broken record” technique, perspective-taking, and ”I”-statements can deepen the intimacy and value derived from close personal relationships, largely by conveying respect for the other person’s volition and value-context while also demanding respect for one’s own. Recorded at Objectivist Conferences 2018 SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/... SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit... EXPLORE ARI http://www.AynRand.org FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER https://twitter.com/AynRandInst LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS https://campus.aynrand.org/ INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES http://objectivistconferences.com/ LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES http://aynrandcon.org/

Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left; Top or Bottom) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) Even if one uses the term Top for Freedom and Bottom for degrees of force it is still a Binary one direction or the other. There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

The Flourishing Man Pilot Broadcast | What is Masculinity and does it even matter?

In the Pilot episode of The Flourishing Man I tackle the question, what is masculinity? Tracing its origins in grammar to what it means in essence in nature. We will discuss why it matters that a positive and good definition of masculinity exist for people that fall within this definition. Touch on the importance of male role models for young boys and men. Why we need to rescue if you will masculinity from both sides the Barbarism is good movement as well as the Radical Feminist movement.

On the Non-Initiation Of Force Principle vs the Non-Aggression Principle

The below article was originally posted by Redditor Mr_Koroand it took the words right out of my mouth. In other words he says in wonderful words one of the many issues with the libertarian movement and its context-dropping/reality evading by ripping NIOFP from any context or possible lines of evidence. No infringement or plagiarism intended by posting it on this blog. This is purely for education reasons. Peace!

Abstract

In this post, I discuss what some Objectivists call the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (hereafter NIOFP) and its relation to its ostensible libertarian-counterpart, the Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter NAP). I presume the reader has some preliminary familiarity with Objectivism.

To begin with, I talk about its origin in the Objectivist literature as well as its validation.

Then, I move onto the origin of the NAP, and some of its validations.

Later, I discuss the aforementioned relation and contrast it with other views.

Finally, I recap and add some personal thoughts.

Quick Introduction

u/JamesShrugged said on a recent meme:

[The NIOFP and the NAP] are the same thing. “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of force.

This led me to think about it. On its surface, the issue seems to be purely semantic. I began thinking whether or not aggression necessarily specifies the initiation of force, and what are the implications of using either formulation. The following is the result of my thinking.

The Origin in the Literature and Validation

The NIOFP's earliest appearance is in Atlas Shrugged. In Galt's speech, Galt spends several paragraphs addressing physical force. In essence, he introduces the idea that no man may initiate the use of force against another, and notes the immorality of succumbing to physical force as forfeiting one's judgment. He finishes by relating the issue to the basis of ethics, stating, in effect, that reason is man's means of survival.

There are many other further discussions of physical force which you can find in the Lexicon.

The validation of the NIOFP is grounded in the Objectivist ethics. There are two fundamental elements to this foundation:

• The first element is the Metaphysical Element. Man, being the rational animal depends on reason to survive. His needs are not accounted for by instincts. The goods he consumes can only be created. In other words, in order to live, man must produce his values, and the only means to that end is thought.
• This leads to the second element, the Normative Element. A man, should he choose to live, and thus be rational, must create the values his existence requires. He cannot expect another to live solely for his sake, and create the values he needs for him. And so, taking by force the values another man has created is self-destructive.

Thus we can observe that the initiation of force is immoral. In order to maintain this position rationally, one must rely on its foundation.

The Origin of the Non-Aggression Principle

Locke was the first to originate the NAP, stating that

no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [1]

Many thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and others, maintained such positions thereafter. But to my knowledge, none have based it on the Objectivist foundation prior to Rand.

In fact, we can observe that some thinkers have based their support of the NAP on their support of equal individual rights. Their support of individual rights can be based on a theological basis, like Jefferson's view of rights as endowed by a Creator, or on a utilitarian basis, like Stuart Mill's view.

Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Rand bases the NIOFP on an ethical basis, and not on rights. Although there is a strong connection between the two, that is worth discussing.

The Relation: Equivalency or Contrast?

As we have seen, the NIOFP is necessarily a reference to the principle as Rand formulated it, and in the context of the Objectivist ethics. The principle specifies precisely what is its subject, by using the words "non-initiation of force." It maintains the proper context that validates it also.

Contrast this to the NAP. This principle can be said to be the result of God's edict that all of mankind was created equal; it can be said to be the result of the need for peace and order in society for the Common Good; it can also be said to be the result of the fact that man cannot truly know reality, and thus all action is amoral, so "live and let live".

The crux of the issue is the huge ambiguity in using the word "aggression".

The word "aggression" has two main senses:

1. Unprovoked physical force.
2. A hostile attitude and/or willingness to attack. [2, 3]

And something we should keep in mind is the fact that the intended sense of words is derived from their context. We should also keep in mind the fact that, unless otherwise specified by the speaker, you cannot assign the NAP any context. Given these facts, one can only conclude that the NAP cannot, and should not be a primary in a given discussion.

Conclusion and Personal Thoughts

By now I have shown that the NAP is a context-less concept. In order to validly use it one must tag onto it a context. This weakness, I believe, invalidates the use of the term NAP on its own, and renders its use for the purpose of communication impractical.

Moreover, this leads me to think about how the use of the term NAP without a context is prevalent in the libertarian community and reveals the arbitrariness with which libertarians base their support of freedom. It also validates my concern for the term NIOFP, as it could be tainted by the irrationally used term NAP.

Objectivism for beginners in Philosophy (a primer for newcomers to philosophical thinking)

This is intended as an article for people whom know nothing or at least very little in regards to broader philosophy in general. It will be both an intro to philosophical thinking as well as an introduction specifically to Objectivism. There is no intention in the reader coming out of the article a new Objectivist by any means. In fact, in order to actually be able to give yourself said title you would need to be able to see the philosophy is grounded in reality and only take on the label following seeing it is correct in reality or not. Objectivism is not a faith like a religion it is a reality based philosophy and thus for the title to be truthful you need to see the truth in its principals first.

Let us start with the first region of philosophy and that is the domain of metaphysics or the nature of reality. All philosophies have something to say about the nature of reality and different ones say different things. Some are coherent with reality and others are in fact incorrect about the nature of reality. However, metaphysics is this crucial aspect of our worldview. We all have such a worldview even if it is not explicit we pick up ones implicitly from others around us. Such is the fact with all philosophical thinking. We all have one even if it is just copying the thinking of those around us. (Even if that view is dead wrong.)

Metaphysics means asking yourself the crucial question does reality even exist? Is there a reality and if so what is its properties? What comes first consciousness or existence? Some people will answer reality is subjective. Some people like myself will say reality is objective and external to our consciousness.

Existence does exist outside of just our wants and desires. The real world is outside there and reality itself exists regardless of ones wishing it did not. If I jump at a wall I will no go through it like a character in a work of fiction where the laws of nature need not apply. Reality is in other words objective and not subjective. Things outside you exist as they do irregardless of what you would like them to be. The role of your consciousness is to look out at existence and learn how to navigate in your current environment using your reason/facts/knowledge of your environment. Consciousness is not primary existence is primary and your means of survival in your current environment is your reason. The fact that we are an animal that has the ability to be rational as its main differentiating factor from other species of Apes in the Animal Kingdom.

Reason brings us to the second level in philosophical thinking epistemology or how one gains knowledge of existence or reality. Reason is our means of taking facts about the world and integrating them together in a concise whole. It is our means of using logic to guide our lives as opposed wanting the facts to change to match what you wish them to be. Other philosophies will come to different conclusions, but, they would be wrong. We cannot just act on mere whim and not think through our actions. This level is all about knowledge and whim is not knowledge. Nor is instincts which were evolved in a different environment. Reality is primary and thus reason is our primary means of long term survival.

This brings us to the third level or aspect of philosophy. Ethics what ethics would or should one live by and many different philosophies with give you different answers. However, following the hierarchy nature of philosophical thinking will bring you to your ethical destination. As the reality is that we all have our own mind and must live our own lives. As we need to take certain actions in order to live. Mainly we need to pursue certain things to live we all have values we need. We need to act to gain and keep them. However, it is the individual that needs to pursue values to live there is no collective mind or collective stomach. Thus the ethical attribute of philosophy in accordance with the level below it would be rational long term flourishing of each individual person. AKA nurturing the self AKA "Rational Long Term" Selfishness or Rational Egoism.

This does not mean one condones throat cutting or harming other people or their property. Nor does it mean that one condones using other people as your means to an end. The exact opposite as all minds are individual only individuals truly exist. Society is just a bunch of individuals living together that come together for various reasons. However, in the end we are all individual minds, individual souls if you wish to use such terminology. Which means it is immoral to use others and instead each individual mind that exists on the Earth is an end in themselves to pursue their own happiness in life. The only ethical social system is where no-one is sacrificing others to themselves nor sacrificing themselves and their values to others. All actions are taken as mutual exchange to mutual benefit and voluntary. The initiation of removal of consent, the initiation of coercion on other people is banned in an ethical social system.

This leads to the next branch which is social or political systems. Only one is constantly coherent with the previous levels of philosophy in my view. However, lots of other philosophies will and do come up with other views other than my own. The important part is that it is in the hierarchy at a different level and not primary, but, a conclusion based on broader philosophical considerations. The only social system consistent with a world where you are left alone to live as you see fit is a Genuine free market AKA Capitalism. This is because it is a social system that lets peaceful live as they see fit and in which all property is privately owned. Meaning you are able to keep the fruits of your labor and any rightful and just property you have obtained by creating it or trading it with other people.

The final area of philosophy is aesthetics or art. Many people will come to many different conclusions based on their broader philosophical outlooks. This is simply a beginner primer in philosophy and Objectivism. There is no obligation or duty on your part to agree with Objectivism based on this outline. However, I do hope this at least makes you realize the importance of philosophy in all of our human lives on this Earth.

Yaron Brook | How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Altruism is not kindness, good will and/or benevolence for each other

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.
The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”"

--Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61

[Altruism: alter or altrui - ism i.e. "other"-ism]

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" (Part 2 of 2) by Onkar Ghate

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" (Part 2 of 2)

It’s more difficult than most people realize to properly conceptualize and understand different political views, terms, theories and groups. For instance, are socialism and fascism opposites? Do the terms “left” and “right” as used today in the U.S. define a political spectrum? What do liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism refer to? This talk summarizes some of the important questions to answer to form genuine political principles, and summarizes Objectivism’s own distinct approach to political philosophy.

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Objectivism is no excuse for dehumanization

This evening I watched a lecture on Objectivism from Gregory Salmieri named, "The Distinctly Human Form of Life." It was overall a good introduction to Objectivism, but, it was filled with allusions to things that I found downright disturbing to say the least. It was not Objectivism or anything Ms/Mrs. Rand said that was disturbing to me. It was the wording used to describe what a "human life was."

While I find myself agreeing that we need to use our Reason as a means of survival and all of the actual philosophical stuff. I disagreed highly with the idea that human's have so little baked into our natures as humans. We have a lot baked into us; including our means of survival Reason itself. We also have Evolved and baked into us that which we call Free Will as well it is an evolved trait. In addition, we have Ultimate Goals or Values very much baked into us as well.

Our species; both of the sexes is evolved to put their genitals in the other and spread their seed. This is a baked in value or goal to procreate. Some of us go a different direction which is how you get the Gay and Lesbians, but, that does not negate the baked in reaction of sexual activity. We also can see baked in differences in the sexes on other fronts too. Most of them around males being more thing oriented at birth and females more social oriented. This does not mean we are born with innate knowledge or innate ideas as such. In this way Gregory is right that we are a Blank Slate in the sense that one does not come out of the womb with the knowledge to understand anything whether innate or not.

However, to argue as he does that basically all we have baked into us is things like a pleasure and pain mechanism nothing else is absurd beyond belief. It is a total denial of any of the science we actually have about human nature. On top of this near the end his lecture becomes dark when asked about suicide from an audience member in the audience. He dehumanizes anyone that might be having issues of any kind that effect their thinking mechanisms. By saying that to live not as a Rational Animal every second of the day and if one ever is overwhelmed by their other mechanisms like emotion this is a "living death." Apparently this includes not having a career or being chronically single.

So, do all the single men and women need to go off and hang themselves if they cannot find a suitable partner? Should all of the people in between jobs due to issues outside of their control just find a gun or a knife and off themselves this instant, so, they are no longer in such a non-human condition? Should all Non-Atheists just go on a Mass Suicide and drink their own poisoned Kool-Aid for the sake of all of the Rational and Truly human animals on this planet? Should any man or woman that has bedded someone due to their hormones being totally overwhelming go jump off the nearest bridge right now?

Gregory. I agree that to live at all times and in all instances as the most Rational Animal that is possible within the type of brain you have at the given time is the morally proper thing. I also agree that Reason and being Rational is our means of survival. Evolutionary Psychology is correct, but, so, is the idea that our psychology as evolved is not necessarily suited for making the best life possible for us in the modern environment. I actually agreed with about 95% of the lecture, but, what kept coming back to me was the wording being used. As well as the idea that we have nothing baked into us.

Gregory; please stop using such dehumanizing language for people that either have issues or just whom do not understand the importance of Reason due to their ignorance. Not everyone that is a Whim Worshiper or Emotionalist is evil. Most them are just ignorant and even if they are highly ignorant living according to immoral ideas they do not deserve to suicide themselves. Most people are not philosophically grounded on this Earth. This does not mean they are not human nor that they should off themselves from their "living death." Even people immoral according to our philosophy as opposed to ignorant are not deserving of a self created end to their lives.

Taking Objectivism seriously is not an excuse to call people that are not living according to our philosophy not living a human life. They very much are human just like you and me. They do not deserve to be dehumanized and treated like they are of less value just because they and us might disagree on philosophical matters. Objectivism is not a dogma and it is not a cult. It is to use reality as its arbiter and reality shows homo-sapeins are humans even if they are living on nothing, but, their emotions as immoral and irrational as that would be it does not remove them from being human qua human.

Religion vs. Morality by Andrew Bernstein

Religion vs. Morality by Andrew Bernstein, Dallas, Texas, October 20, 2012.

Visit www.TheObjectiveStandard.com to explore more of these ideas.

Shoshana Milgram - Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead

This talk was recorded at Objectivist Summer Conference 2018 in Newport Beach, California.


Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead: The Full Story

To what extent (if any) was Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark really Frank Lloyd Wright? The parallels between her fictional hero and an actual architect have, over time, been exaggerated, denied and distorted. This talk, drawing on Wright’s archives, uncovers key relevant facts. You will learn the full story, including Ayn Rand’s remarks on a never-reprinted Wright article and the secret negotiations regarding the prospect of his working on the 1949 film.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/