I've noticed, understandably, that people with limited intelligence become unhappy when they are reminded of their limitations.  I don't mean taunting, I mean witnessing what others can do and understand, and not being able to do and or understand those things.  Similar to the frustration the particularly able feel when they are surrounded by people who can't do and understand what they do and understand. 

The philosophical and political corruption of language itself was a recurrent theme in Rand's work. In Anthem (published in the U.K. several years before the work of Orwell), Rand envisions a future dictatorship in which even memory of the word "I" has been eliminated.

I said I wouldn't do any more of your homework for you, Richard, but I feel obliged to recognize that there are occasions when Rand uses a term in a way unique to her. Sometimes existing definitions just won't do. And, so long as the new definition and meaning is made crystal clear, there's nothing inherently objectionable to this, is there?

For example, if existing dictionaries define "selfishness" as something that must come at the expense of others, and provides no alternative term, then focusing our attention on a "selfishness" which does not gets us right to Rand's point. She argues that one's actual self-interest does not and cannot pit him in mortal conflict with everyone else. Honest and just cooperation and benevolence among men does not require egoism to surrender an inch. Just the reverse is true. It seems that something has been defined out of existence.

We must seize the very concept of "selfishness," according to Rand.

Another example is the term "mysticism." While previous attempts at definition have been somewhat cloudy and vague, it normally denotes a transcendent experience of some kind.

Our friend, Neil Parille, in his typically inadequate treatment of the subject over at ObjectiBlog, provides a pretty standard approach, quoting Anglican theologian Alister McGrath:

"A multifaceted term, which can bear a variety of meanings. In its most important sense, the terms refer to the union with God which is seen as the ultimate goal of the Christian life. This union is not to be thought of in rational terms, but more in terms of a direct consciousness or experience of God." (McGrath, Christian Spirituality, p. 187.)

McGrath is correct, and even about the inconsistency of previous definitions. Consider other popular uses of the term -- from Broadway musicals to television sit-coms -- and you will see what he means. Is it the belief in reincarnation or other non-orthodox religious beliefs? Is it the ecumenical aspect of all faiths? These and more can be found as offered defintions.

But Rand uses this term -- again, lacking any other existing concept that would do -- in a much broader sense to mean any a-rationally or irrationally based belief.

Reason and only reason can yield knowledge, according to Rand, and the reliance on any other non-method "method" of coming to one's beliefs, in the end, must in fact boil down to emotional and psychological motives at work, whether what's "used" is a horoscope or a Ouija board or a revelation from God.

According to Objectivism, the Law of Identity implies that there is no "magical" knowledge of any kind.

Thus, many ideas traditionally considered "secular" are forms of "mysticism," according to Rand. When a Marxist dismisses the sound arguments of opponents as "bourgeois logic" -- when his prophesies include utopian visions of a world populated only with Shakespeares and Einsteins -- and one in which the State simply withers away -- when his aim to aid the Proletariat in fact results in the crushing of millions of ordinary working individuals -- when the needs of the Great Future, which never seems to get here, forever squash all the real "nows" -- we must recognize that we are looking a rank mysticism, a kind of religious thinking which is anything but "science."

On the other hand, a belief in God may or may not be "mystical," according to Rand. If one honestly, if mistakenly, believes that reason and logic demonstrate the existence of God, like Aquinas, then this is not an instance of "mysticism," only error.

Such a mistake is not a rebellion against reason -- it still leaves itself open to rational correction.

So, there you go -- two concepts Rand quite intentionally and explicitly commandeered for her own use.

[edit.: Speaking of "context," I think that there might be a value in providing a link to the rest of our discussion on ethics, Richard.]

As Rand said repeatedly, virtue is not the degree of one's intelligence, but the use of such intelligence as one has.

Even for those who might not be able to understand philosophy, the pursuit of rational values is necessary to happiness. Even for these, the pursuit of what their life requires is necessary -- or they are doomed to frustration and misery.

Having worked with enough of the developmentally disabled, I can assure you that misery and frustration can also be observed -- only it doesn't make such a nice photo.

Re: Linz's comment:

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Choice.  You may choose to embrace reality or illusion.  If you use reason and understand what makes you happy, you are much more likely to be happy.  I don't think Rand was saying that smart people are happier.  She was explaining that the more thoroughly you embrace reality, reason, and logic, the more you can impact your own happiness.  If on the otherhand you prefer to pretend you are happy by embracing some fantastic illusion...

Your picture proves her point as it provides evidence for their rational happiness. 

You know, Richard, since Ayn Rand first began to articulate her concept of self-esteem in The Fountainhead (1943), the field of psychology has been playing catch-up. She believed that emotion has a cognitive component, and she held self-esteem to be the hallmark of psychological health, and the anxiety of neurosis, its opposite.

I could go on, but, perhaps, you should learn about the topic before making big, derogatory pronouncements on it.

I hope that was civil.

Richard "But what Rand meant by 'rationality' seems to be far more demanding."

Not really. If you re-read your own excerpt from "The Objectivist Ethics" you will see that good judgment and sound sense is based on rationality.The only other way to make good judgment would be innate ideas, instincts or revelation-which is mystical way.If you ask such a person how does he know that his judgment is good and sense is sound the answer would be " I just know, period." One also may use emotions as automatic value-judgment mechanism. Nothing wrong about it as long as one doesn't treat them as irreducible primaries.

Richard's on-line dictionary also includes this as part of its definition of "happiness":

"Happiness results from the possession or attainment of what one considers good..."

Here's Rand's actual definition:

"Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values."

It is important to notice that physical pleasure and pain also operate in this way. Animals and infants also feel pleasure when they have what their bodies automatically tell them they need -- i.e., with the attainment of certain physical values. Pain is experienced when we are deprived of such values.

For beings as complex as healthy adult humans, of course, the requirements for emotional satisfaction are far more demanding. Our psychologies can develop defense mechanisms against those gnawing doubts that result from evasion, but this is hardly "happiness."

No. They are the same.

On-line dictionary: "The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence."

We can ignore the circularity of including "rational" in the definition of "reason" for a second, but logic is indeed the key. Inductive logic requires and thus includes observation and concept-formation. This is all that's missing from Rand's epistemic definition of reason, and, so, the dictionary here is a bit less specific than one would like, but gets the idea well enough. (It also includes "common sense," in another form, I see, and that also implicitly captures this, as well.)

To be precise: for Rand, reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the evidence of human sense-perception by the method of logic.

[edit. P.S. According to the same on-line dictionary, "inductive" may be defined as follows: "1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning from facts or particulars to general principles or from effects to causes; inductive; empirical. 2a. Justified by appeal to experience. b. Knowable from experience."]

Do you agree that what the term 'rationality' means and what Rand meant by the term 'rationality' are not the same? Yes or no?

Philosophers are stuck with the existing dictionary? Particularly, the lousy modern ones? Why on earth? I wonder how Aristotle, Aquinas or Locke would have fared had dictionaries (and Richard) existed in their times? Why do we need philosophers, after all we have... dictionaries?!

From his original presentation, one can see just how "easy" Richard sees both "reason" and "happiness" to be (or wants them to be?)

btw: this isn't Rand's most general description of "reason" as an epistemological tool, but that in the context of reason as an ethical virtue. ("Context" is one word in her usage -- Richard is the plain old Con.)

The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power and to the constant, active expansion of one's perception, i.e., of one's knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one's own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one's goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one's fullest capacity permits. It means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one's own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one's knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.

Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics

Richard, exactly what are we talking about?

In this context, we're talking about

4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

and 5. Good judgment; sound sense.

Rationality is the exercise of the above. Agreed?

But what Rand meant by 'rationality' seems to be far more demanding.

Richard, exactly what are we talking about?

http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/R0074100.html

1,2,3,4,5,6,7 or all 7?

Given his original presentation of the issue, do you think that Richard can even grasp the difference between the pleasant warmth from a shot of scotch and the ecstasy of achievement?

Wouldn't he at least have hinted so by now?

Leonid

If newborn finds his mother's breast by means of grasp reflex and then sucks milk by means of sucking reflex he feels pleasure. If cat hunts a bird by means of hunting instinct and then eats it,it feels pleasure.If you stroke it, it feels pleasure and purr. Retarded people certainly can feel pleasure-from good meal or drink-as in your picture.Pleasure as like as pain is simple sensation, input. Happiness ,however, is complex emotion, mental output, which is affirmation of certain values, subconscious response to achievement of goals. Goal achievement is rational process. I don't deny that retarded people may act toward achievement of simple goals and feel happy if they success.Retardness doesn't mean irrationality,it means limited cognitive ability. Within their limitation they may act rationaly, achieve their goals and feel happy. Animals and newborns cannot do that. BTW , to which part of my post you reffer when you claim that I compare apples with nails?

Animals and newborns cannot be rational

That's what you said. So you compare apples with nails?

For humans pursuit of happiness is pursuit and achievement of goals and this is rational process.

So no happy babies, no happy clappies and no happy retards? What about happy cats?

I was doing the American equivalent with Starbucks as I was writing that post.

Have a biscuit and a nice big cup of Milo.

Leonid

"Animals and newborns cannot be rational, either. No happy babies. No happy cats. No happy clappies."

Richard,you compare apples with nails.Animals are not humans.They function on different,perceptual level .Driven by pleasure-pain mechanism they may achieve pleasure (not happiness) and avoid pain.Humans cannot function like animals and cannot achieve any goals on perceptual level.For humans pursuit of happiness is pursuit and achievement of goals and this is rational process. So it is no happiness without rationality.For vivid demonstration watch excellent movie " The pursuit of happiness" The problem is not how to define happiness but what one has to do to achieve it.For adult humans this action has to be rational-for the reason I described above.

When someone hears my favorite Rachmaninov in concert and walks out saying "it sucked," I have a similar sense of sheer pity.

It's not a pleasant feeling.

Dictionaries won't help him, either.

Discussing the human potential with Richard, I fear, is like talking to the color blind about one's choice of colors to wear...

But, good luck achieving those irrational goals, Richard!

Rand defined happiness

That's the problem. It's Rand who equivocates on the term 'happiness'. Definitions are necessary only for explanation (of unfamiliar terms) or equivocation. (Equivocation is Rand's favourite logical sleight of hand.)

The meaning of the term 'happiness' is determined by the millions of English speakers who use the term successfully to communicate with each other. It is not, and cannot be, determined solely by Ayn Rand.

If you don't know what 'happiness' means, look it up in a dictionary. You'll find some useful examples and synonyms.

'Happy" has a context that is different for babies, cats and 'clappies'. Richard is trying to equivocate on the term. Rand defined happiness, where has Richard?

Wm

Her concept of happiness, as with selfishness, greed, capitalism and other key terms, differed from that commonly accepted.

No doubt those "other key terms" include morality, value, ought and is.

You cannot say what you mean if what you mean by what you say is not what what you say means.

Would one of the Rand scholars on SOLO like to recommend a good translation of The Objectist Ethics from Randspeak into everyday English?

There ain't no such thing as a happy retard seems to be the majority view.

Leonid, for example, suggests that I have confused happiness with clinical idiocy. In another comment he says it's not just retards. Animals and newborns cannot be rational, either. No happy babies. No happy cats. No happy clappies. No happy retards.

The gentlemen pictured above look pretty happy to me. What on earth would motivate you to deny that the situation is as it appears, other than that happy retards are against the Word of Galt?

I did get his point, Reed. I just wanted him to expound on it. Pointless though, given that he thinks Luke's reply concedes his point. It does no such thing, and how anyone could possibly think that it does is beyond me.

Is it unreasonable to be happy when you are safe, warm, and enjoying a warm cup of something sweet? 

Just because you are on the wrong end of the bell curve, doesn't mean you can't use reason.  These two have a reason to be happy, and they probably know why they are happy.  Why would you assume that they do not employ reason?

Richard,are you sure you don't confuse happiness with the clinical idiocy?

It's possible his point is that only a clinical idiot can be happy without rationality? Or maybe it's a little more like the old ditty,

"There goes the happy idiot, he doesn't give a damn. I wish I was an idiot. My God, perhaps I am!"

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

... since we are being asked to judge happiness from a photograph—these two are obviously happier than Dr. Goode, and we are entitled to assume that's a function of the fact that retards are more rational than Humeans.

Linz

From the lexicon...

Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.

Does refusing to see their happiness make one irrational and therefore unhappy?

I wouldn't even be prepared to say that they are "happy."

They are grinning for a photo.... but that's its own thing.

As soon as the Milo runs out and there are no biscuits left... I doubt that they'll be grinning anymore with "happiness." They'll be throwing fits and tantrums, shrieking mercilessly until another rational person goes out to replenish the cupboards.

Richard " They are happy, and they aren't rational"

Richard,are you sure you don't confuse happiness with the clinical idiocy?

Her concept of happiness, as with selfishness, greed, capitalism and other key terms, differed from that commonly accepted. So she would not consider these goofs "happy." For more on her notions of happiness, see

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Imagine how long they would stay happy without such care.

Not very long.

But you have conceded my point. They are happy, and they aren't rational. So, it's false that happiness is possible only to a rational man. Rand is wrong.

Retardates need rational people.

These guys would be quite unhappy without the rational capacities of those caring for them. They only look happy because of the capable people caring for them. Imagine how long they would stay happy without such care. They are born second-handers -- not their fault but still their burden and a basis to smack any "cockiness" about the matter from their souls.

In all fairness to them, some do manage to progress enough to live independently and with enough modicum of rationality to produce enough to sustain their most basic needs.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

... obvious and amusing.

Your point is?