| | Merlin,
Where on earth did I say that Ayn Rand was mystical? I said that she swallowed Locke's version of rights when it suited her context. She did shift contexts, though. I will present a list of quotes later.
John D,
No, I was not referring to you as one of the quoters. In an earlier discussion of this subject, there was an hysterical orgy of proclamations, grandstanding and misinterpretation against my position, with Linz even chiming in condemning my future article sight unseen. (I do admit to instigating it a bit by using the term "social convention" for rights without making it clear that I was referring to convention as "social pact" like the Magna Carta or Constitution, not arbitrary tradition. I like the shock value of the term, as it wakes people up and gets them to focus on their prejudices.) Rick Pasotto cherry picked some quotes and tried to "prove" that I was some kind of pinko or something - and clearly stated that I was in flat out disagreement with Ayn Rand. It was very hard to be heard in that context. At least on this thread, some of what I am saying is starting to sink in before the yelling gets underway. Intelligent people like Adam are giving the matter thought and actually arriving at some of the same conclusions as my own.
Adam,
I gave some thought to your remark about my discourse being strange at times. I take that to be a tremendous compliment. That is the hallmark of originality.
My whole approach is to use Objectivism in plain language, not use the typical jargon. This came from living in a culture for many years that is completely deaf (neither hostile nor favorable) to ideas like Objectivism. My purpose is to try to find a way to reach those who do not like (or understand) jargon-laden presentations and discussions. One of the unexpected benefits I am seeing is that it causes others who are knowledgeable in Objectivism to pause and rethink some premises. So I don't mind being a bit strange. I consider it an honor and thank you for saying so.
Jon,
The only reason a person cannot transfer his life into slavery is because it is illegal all over the world. No other reason. This was possible in the past. It no longer is.
Social context. Other people.
Here is an interesting quote from Peikoff (OPAR, p. 351) on rights, which gives a good idea of what I have been talking about all along. btw - He considers the inalienable part to mean morally inalienable (based on the Objectivist concept of morals), not non-transferable in any other sense.
If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others. Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature. There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.
As can be seen, my concept - that society is essential to the concept of rights - is VERY Objectivist. Without organized society, the issue of rights is premature. Without organized society, the concept of rights has no context and no meaning.
In this particular instance, Peikoff is a bit clearer than Ayn Rand, because he kept her contexts and different meanings of the word "rights" very clear in drawing up that chapter of OPAR.
I still think it is a mistake to use the same word, rights, to mean different things, then say, for one of those meanings only, that only certain rights exist (meaning that others do not, when they clearly do under the other meanings), leaving the context implied. That generates confusion.
One other interesting part, for me, is that Peikoff thinks in terms of the hierarchy of philosophy (that politics sits on ethics, which sits on epistemology which sits on metaphysics). I came to this same conclusion about 30 years ago independently of reading his works, simply based on reading Rand. Many people who argue on Solo do not think in these terms in drawing up their premises, but that's the way it is supposed to be done in Objectivism.
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/09, 8:47am)
|
|
