So this will be our last session of the semester. Don't forget we do have our last speaking event next monday the 26th click HERE for more info.
This week we will be finishing The Objectivist Ethics. If you haven't been reading along you may still attend this last meeting!
Also, we will be continuing the club over the summer. We will concentrate on one lecture series (we haven't decided which one yet), although some of us like Leonard Peikoff's "History of Philosophy." Stay tuned for more info.
Heres the information for this last meeting:
Conventional wisdom often holds that we face a dilemma: either we surrender our interests to others or we exploit others. According to this view, there are unavoidable conflicts of interests among people.
In our final discussion on the “virtue of selfishness,” we’ll examine the psychological and social facts Ayn Rand identifies that undermine the inevitability of conflict and sacrifice, and her view of how the rejection of sacrifice supports the establishment of laissez-faire capitalism.
“[J]ust as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose.”
—Ayn Rand , “The Objectivist Ethics”
Material to be discussed:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Next Meeting: Tuesday April 13th from 6:00pm - 8:00pm (part 2)
This week we will be continuing our three part discussion. We will be
covering Ayn Rand's theoretical article entitled: The Objectivist
Ethics. Click HERE for the link to the full text for free.
And a supplemental audio HERE.
By the way, even if you missed the first one, just read the first 66
paragraphs and you'll be fine.
This will be Part 2 and we will cover paragraphs 34-66 (It will end on
the paragraph that starts like this):
"The Virtue of productiveness is the recognition..."
Here is an intro:
Most people are taught as children that it is wrong to be selfish, and
that living morally means surrendering one’s wealth and time to others
who are in need. In defense of this idea, little more is offered than
that some higher power commands it or that society expects it of us.
In this first discussion, we will ask, with Ayn Rand, whether there is
an alternative source of values, some rational, scientific basis—and
how the idea that selfishness is a vice looks in light of that
alternative basis.
. . .
“No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable,
scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of
values. . . .
[M]ost philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has
failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational
ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics . . . man
must be guided by something other than reason. . . .Today, as in the
past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is
whim . . . and the battle is only over the question or whose whim:
one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. . . .
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—
and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.”
—Ayn Rand , “The Objectivist Ethics.”
covering Ayn Rand's theoretical article entitled: The Objectivist
Ethics. Click HERE for the link to the full text for free.
And a supplemental audio HERE.
By the way, even if you missed the first one, just read the first 66
paragraphs and you'll be fine.
This will be Part 2 and we will cover paragraphs 34-66 (It will end on
the paragraph that starts like this):
"The Virtue of productiveness is the recognition..."
Here is an intro:
Most people are taught as children that it is wrong to be selfish, and
that living morally means surrendering one’s wealth and time to others
who are in need. In defense of this idea, little more is offered than
that some higher power commands it or that society expects it of us.
In this first discussion, we will ask, with Ayn Rand, whether there is
an alternative source of values, some rational, scientific basis—and
how the idea that selfishness is a vice looks in light of that
alternative basis.
. . .
“No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable,
scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of
values. . . .
[M]ost philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has
failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational
ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics . . . man
must be guided by something other than reason. . . .Today, as in the
past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is
whim . . . and the battle is only over the question or whose whim:
one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. . . .
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—
and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.”
—Ayn Rand , “The Objectivist Ethics.”
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Next Meeting: Tuesday April 6th from 6:00pm - 8:00pm
This week we will be starting a three part discussion. We will be covering Ayn Rand's theoretical article entitled: The Objectivist Ethics.
This will be Part 1 and we will cover paragraphs 1-33. (It will end on the paragraph that starts like this: "The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A “perception” is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things."
Here is an intro:
Most people are taught as children that it is wrong to be selfish, and that living morally means surrendering one’s wealth and time to others who are in need. In defense of this idea, little more is offered than that some higher power commands it or that society expects it of us.
In this first discussion, we will ask, with Ayn Rand, whether there is an alternative source of values, some rational, scientific basis—and how the idea that selfishness is a vice looks in light of that alternative basis.
. . .
“No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. . . .
[M]ost philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics . . . man must be guided by something other than reason. . . .Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim . . . and the battle is only over the question or whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. . . .
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.”
—Ayn Rand , “The Objectivist Ethics.”
This will be Part 1 and we will cover paragraphs 1-33. (It will end on the paragraph that starts like this: "The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A “perception” is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things."
Here is an intro:
Most people are taught as children that it is wrong to be selfish, and that living morally means surrendering one’s wealth and time to others who are in need. In defense of this idea, little more is offered than that some higher power commands it or that society expects it of us.
In this first discussion, we will ask, with Ayn Rand, whether there is an alternative source of values, some rational, scientific basis—and how the idea that selfishness is a vice looks in light of that alternative basis.
. . .
“No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. . . .
[M]ost philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethics . . . man must be guided by something other than reason. . . .Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim . . . and the battle is only over the question or whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. . . .
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethics—and of all ethical history—that you must challenge.”
—Ayn Rand , “The Objectivist Ethics.”
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Our Unwinnable Middle East Wars? A talk By Elan Journo
Come see Elan Journo Discuss America's war policy in the Middle East. The talk is entitled "Our Unnwinnible Middle East Wars?"
Elan Journo is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights focusing on foreign policy issues. He is the editor of and chief contributor to Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His articles have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chicago Sun-Times, and Orange County Register. Mr. Journo's articles have also been published in major newspapers abroad, including Australia's Herald Sun, Canberra Times and Canada's Globe and Mail. Mr. Journo is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Mr. Journo has lectured in college campuses and has given numerous radio interviews on foreign policy and the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. Specialties: Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid, Islamic Terrorism, National Security, Individual Rights
WHEN: Monday, April 26th From 6:00pm - 8:00pm
WHERE: North Classroom (NC) Room 1539 on the Downtown Auraria Campus.
RSVP on our Facebook Event Page
Click HERE for a map of the Auraria Campus and all the parking lots. The Lecture will be in the North Classroom, which on the map is building 3.
WHAT: Below is a description of the event.
The regrouped Taliban and their Islamist allies are waging a fierce comeback in Afghanistan--the launching pad for 9/11--and are actively hatching plots against us. The Islamist regime in Iran--which began an anti-American holy war decades prior to 9/11--appears poised to acquire its own nuclear weapon. Pakistan struggles to fend off Islamist forces seeking to dominate the nuclear-armed state. Many now believe that America's military operation in Afghanistan is unwinnable--even as new threats, from Iran and Pakistan, loom large.
Is there a way out of this seemingly hopeless and worsening mire?
Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute explains that a key problem in U.S. policy since 9/11 has been Washington’s failure to clearly identify the enemy. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime are not separate problems to be dealt with piecemeal. They are part of the Islamist movement, the state-supported, ideological enemies whose members share the goal of imposing totalitarian Islamist rule worldwide, and they regard America as a prime enemy. To protect ourselves from the Islamist movement, Mr. Journo argues, requires a thorough understanding of this foe and the willingness to defeat its state supporters. Had we done that after 9/11, we could have ended the Islamist threat years ago--and we still could today. Q&A follows.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Next Meeting: Tuesday March 30th from 6:00pm - 8:00pm
We will be covering Ayn Rand's Essay "Collectivized Rights." Click HERE for the text.
The Preamble of the UN Charter claims to derive its authority from the “the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Article 51 also speaks of the right to “collective self-defense” of each of its members, as Article 55 speaks of the importance of “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
Can every nation or people be said to have rights, in the same way that every individual can be said to have rights? Is there a basis for the claim that economic, racial, ethnic, sexual groups enjoy special rights? This week we will discuss Ayn Rand’s essay, “Collectivized Rights,” in which she claims that there are no such rights independent of the rights of individuals.
. . .
“The notion of ‘collective rights’ (that notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) mean that ‘rights’ belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the ‘right’ to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.”
—Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Rights.”
Material to be discussed:
• “Collectivized Rights,” pp. 439-45 in *The Ayn Rand Reader*
o Full text online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights
Also, for future meetings you will need to order the book "The Ayn Rand Reader" Which is where many of our future discussions will come from.
click HERE for the link to order the book.
The Preamble of the UN Charter claims to derive its authority from the “the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Article 51 also speaks of the right to “collective self-defense” of each of its members, as Article 55 speaks of the importance of “respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
Can every nation or people be said to have rights, in the same way that every individual can be said to have rights? Is there a basis for the claim that economic, racial, ethnic, sexual groups enjoy special rights? This week we will discuss Ayn Rand’s essay, “Collectivized Rights,” in which she claims that there are no such rights independent of the rights of individuals.
. . .
“The notion of ‘collective rights’ (that notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) mean that ‘rights’ belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the ‘right’ to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.”
—Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Rights.”
Material to be discussed:
• “Collectivized Rights,” pp. 439-45 in *The Ayn Rand Reader*
o Full text online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_collectivized_rights
Also, for future meetings you will need to order the book "The Ayn Rand Reader" Which is where many of our future discussions will come from.
click HERE for the link to order the book.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Next Meeting: Tuesday March 16th from 6:00pm - 8:00pm
This week we will be covering Ayn Rand's essay entitled: Man's Rights.
Below is a description.
Click HERE to download a free copy of the essay.
And HERE Is a supplemental audio file to listen to.
The Declaration of Independence says that “men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human rights declares that “freedom from fear and want” have been “proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
Are rights really God-given, or merely social proclamations? Or is there another source? This week we will discuss Ayn Rand’s essay, “Man’s Rights,” which describes a third possible source. Her view has the distinctive implication that the rights to life, liberty and property are only the rights of an individual to take action in pursuit of one’s interests—not the rights to demand the resources of others.
. . .
“The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.”
—Ayn Rand , “Man’s Rights.
Below is a description.
Click HERE to download a free copy of the essay.
And HERE Is a supplemental audio file to listen to.
The Declaration of Independence says that “men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human rights declares that “freedom from fear and want” have been “proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
Are rights really God-given, or merely social proclamations? Or is there another source? This week we will discuss Ayn Rand’s essay, “Man’s Rights,” which describes a third possible source. Her view has the distinctive implication that the rights to life, liberty and property are only the rights of an individual to take action in pursuit of one’s interests—not the rights to demand the resources of others.
. . .
“The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.”
—Ayn Rand , “Man’s Rights.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Next Meeting: Tuesday March 9th from 6:00pm - 8:00pm
Our next topic will be on Free Speech. We will watch a one hour panel discussion entitled: Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons. Then we'll have a one hour discussion on it.
The Panelists are:
Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of Middle East Forum
The Moderator is Dr. Edwin A Locke, Deans Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Motivation. (This is the speaker that was on our campus last wednesday discussing "Christianity vs. Objectivism"
Here is the synopsis of the discussion:
The Danish Cartoons depicting muhammad have sparked worldwide controversy. Death threats and violent protests have sent the cartoonists into hiding and have had the intended effect of stiffling freedom of expression. The reaction to these cartoons raises urgent questions whose significance goes far beyond a set of drawings.
1. What is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend?
2. What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons?
3. How should Western governments have responded to this incident?
4. How should the western media have responded?
After the hour panel discussion we will spend an hour discussing the idea of free speech and where it derives it's power from. As well as many of the issues that are raised in this fascinating dissection of an event in our recent history.
The Panelists are:
Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of Middle East Forum
The Moderator is Dr. Edwin A Locke, Deans Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Motivation. (This is the speaker that was on our campus last wednesday discussing "Christianity vs. Objectivism"
Here is the synopsis of the discussion:
The Danish Cartoons depicting muhammad have sparked worldwide controversy. Death threats and violent protests have sent the cartoonists into hiding and have had the intended effect of stiffling freedom of expression. The reaction to these cartoons raises urgent questions whose significance goes far beyond a set of drawings.
1. What is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend?
2. What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons?
3. How should Western governments have responded to this incident?
4. How should the western media have responded?
After the hour panel discussion we will spend an hour discussing the idea of free speech and where it derives it's power from. As well as many of the issues that are raised in this fascinating dissection of an event in our recent history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
