š Aside: conversation practice
Iād like to use this as conversation practice. Some things Iām going to try to do (and keep doing consistently) is to write a focused reply to one thing. Iāll also keep questions focused and to a minimum so we can go deep rather than going wide. I might note other topics/things as we go so that we can come back to them later. IDK if itās possible to have like a wiki-post where we could both keep conversation-tree type metadata. I guess youāre a mod so I can make a reply mb and we can both edit that post as required? Iāll do that after this reply so we can use it if we want. We could also keep separate ones.
How do you see the AR quote as related to mine? Itās not obvious to me what youāre trying to point out. I have some ideas, but theyāre guesses.
My main guess is that you think thereās a conflict between āsocialā and āinterpersonalā ā is that right?
I thought itād be good to try to interpret the Galt quote.
The title and ~subtitle of this section of FTNI is:
āTHIS IS JOHN GALT SPEAKINGā
This is the philosophy of Objectivism.
A few paragraphs before the main quote, Galt says (this seems notable):
āA rational process is a moral process. [ā¦]
Hereās the main quote, with some paragraphs from above/below the main paragraph too. (I havenāt read AS or FTNI, so it was useful for me to get some context.)
It seems like the connection between rationality and morality (and the choice to pursue reason/truth) is the main topic of these paragraphs.
For the original AR quote, hereās my take on it:
- Galt is addressing listeners/readers who think that both:
- morality is social
- My guess is that this is directly related to ARās criticisms of ideas like man has an obligation to live for others, rather than himself
- āmorality is socialā is referring to these ideas (which AR/objectivism disagrees with)
- My guess is that this is directly related to ARās criticisms of ideas like man has an obligation to live for others, rather than himself
- a person[1], in isolation / a vacuum, has no need of morality
- a desert island is often a metaphor for extreme isolation, or a situation where thereās no connection to civilization / other people. Thatās how it reads to me atm.
- morality is social
- Galt is saying that this is a time where morality is exceptionally important
- this meaning being on a desert island (in isolation / a vacuum)
- i.e., thereās no social factors ā but morality is still important
- this meaning being on a desert island (in isolation / a vacuum)
- the next sentence (which is the rest of the para) answers the question why is morality important in this case?
- my outline of the answer: [if he claims] ([without society/victims to make the claims true]) [ā¦examples of irrational claimsā¦] [then heāll die] [because thinking/rationality is necessary to live and stay living].
- I agree with this (both in isolation, and in answer to the above question)
- Iād still agree with this without the āwhen there are no victims to pay for itā bit.
- I read it as like a necessary parenthetical, but WRT Galtās ideas themselves, I think the conclusion still makes sense without it.
- my outline of the answer: [if he claims] ([without society/victims to make the claims true]) [ā¦examples of irrational claimsā¦] [then heāll die] [because thinking/rationality is necessary to live and stay living].
Do you see any problems with my understanding of the quote? Itās not obvious to me that thereās a conflict between my take and my quote.
Note for future
One thing I did notice, a few paragraphs earlier Galt says:
[ā¦] but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.
I think itās implied that Galt thinks ādevotion to truth is the hallmark of moralityā. Itās not obvious that thereās convergence between this idea and my quote, so maybe thereās a conflict.
Mb useful questions for context / bg
Some closed question that might be useful for us to both answer upfront (to figure out points that we might disagree on).
Note: Iām conscious this is going broad (in some sense) early in the conversation. I donāt think itād be good to focus on any disagreements that come up with these right now (not without good reason), but they might be good context for us re: each-otherās ideas. Also, to avoid going deep, theyāre all closed (yes/no) questions.
- Do you think your future self is a different person to your current self? (my answer: yes)
- If so, does āinterpersonal harmā include harm to your future self? (my answer: yes)
WRT my quote:
Morality is about interpersonal harm, and people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.
-
If āinterpersonalā was removed, would you still disagree with that?
- (my answer: yes; i.e. I agree with āMorality is about harmā)
-
Do you agree with the second clause: āā¦ people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.ā?
- (my answer: yes)
I read the way Galt says āmanā as collectively referring to ~civilization, but the example (on a desert island) seems to be talking about a single person ā thatās why I say āa personā specifically. If there were more than 1 person, then there would be some social/interpersonal stuff, which would defeat the purpose of the example. ā©ļø