Vacuous Egoism

I've posted before about why I am an egoist. But, as I noted, one can be an egoist and still believe in helping others. In fact, so do I. Then isn't that simply vacuous egoism? I don't think it is. Strong, Randian egoism comes from the premise that the only actual person relevant to any discussion is the individual. Rand denied that there was anything such as humanity, in a rather Humian fashion. And yes, I like the play on words there. She claimed that humanity is nothing more than the aggregate of all its parts- humans. Any other notion, claimed Rand, denied the individual his due autonomy, and would be nothing more than collectivist fascism.

This is precisely where I would disagree. I haven't worked out all the details in my head yet, but it's clear to me that individuals are also parts of communities. Besides the oft quote Aristotelain maxim that man is a social being, society in crucial in man's upbringing. Without society, man simply would not develop in the same way- and not in a positive way at all. There have been cases where children have been kept in complete isolation, and upon entry into society, simply could not learn to talk. No matter how long.

That said, what is it that society makes? I agree here with Rand that it, first and foremost, makes an individual. It is quite the paradox that individual cognition can only be achieve through communal help, but it seems to be the case nonetheless. But, people's bonds of association run deeply. Rand was wont to explain love as a capitalist transaction, whereby one loved someone only as a result of achieving value in them.

This seems false- I love my parents, but that love does not consist in the value I see in them, for often I don't see such value. Now, that love was probably caused by the situation I was raised in, in other words, the facts that they care for me and showed me love as well. Even though this was the cause of the love, it is not the content of that love. Likewise, it is not restricted by that cause. Even were my parents to be so despicable that I hated them, and their evil actions far outweighed whatever good they gave to me, I would still love them nonetheless. Why? Because that love so formed it part of my self-conception of personhood.


In other words, and more simply, I see myself as part of my family. But, not only that, it is a perception that is almost impossible to escape. It would require specific deliberation and action, and even then, there is not guarantee that it would work. So, I see myself, in addition to being an individual, as part of my family, as part of two nations (America, and the Jewish people), and as part of humanity in general.

Now, I still haven't completely reconciled these two ideas. I don't know that reconciliation is possible, maybe they are simply two conflicting strains of perception. My inquiry runs parallel to the very same inquiry I have in Judaism. Hopefully I will address that in a future post- and the answer there may help me here.

The 'Real World' of Categorical Imperatives

In light of the Epigram's recent defense of Big Brother, I think I'm gonna pitch a mild defense on behalf of the Real World. Aside from the drama, it really is an interesting study in human relations. Btw, a very interesting show is Kid Nation- its contrived in a way that seems a bit detrimental to the experiment, but fascinating nonetheless. But back to the Real World.

I want to bring out a point that really pisses me off about people. In the episode I was watching (S18E3) there was a very interesting back and forth between Shavoun and Parisa. Shavoun was bitching that Parisa was judging her (which she really wasn't) and that the only 'person' that has a right to judge is G-d. Aside from the fact of how stupid it would be to reserve moral judgement only for G-d, Shavoun was doing more than her fair share of judging. Accusing Parisa of not having a personality was described in the show as 'blow beneath the belt.'

So basically, the people with the stupid names were accusing the other of doing what they in fact were doing. And further, they 'reserved' judgement as the right of G-d.

I think that there is an important psychological point to illicit here. People see in others the faults that they have in themselves. But, its something more than that. People set up defense mechanism for behavior that they know full well is incorrect, by simply passing the buck on others. Time and time again you can see this.

People wantonly accuse others of being intolerant, coercive, stifling, etc. when it is in fact what they would like to be.

It's so difficult to deal with people like this. I want to call them out on it. But of course, you can't- because they won't even even recognize it. But, how does this relate to the categorical imperative?

It's not quite what Kant meant, but I'm starting to realize that for almost all crap that goes on in this world there is one measuring stick. If you check to see if people are consistent in their 'condemnations' of others, and see how utterly inconsistent they in fact are, then you can tell that they are wrong. This is a method that Ayn Rand 'developed' to combat communism- taking it to its extreme, it is the negation of value for non-value.

Seriously people, introspect just a little into your own lives. See if you are remotely consistent in your opinions and reasoning. I think Ayn Rand was right that this world is filled with evaders, and people who consistently twist the facts to their own benefit. Further, there is an artificial construct which benefit those evaders, where reason is considered coercion, and straight-talk is damned.