Moral Virtue Part 3: "The Virtue of Independence" (by Leonard Peikoff)

[@periteu]

*Rationality* (48:01) (48:18) Justice (41:53) *Independence* - Principle (47:35) (55:07) (1:02:50) - Examples of dependency (22:55) (1:04:33) (1:30:05) *Orientation to reality rather than people* - Application (48:24) (49:35) - Reality (1:02:57) - Alternatives: (1:13:12) (1:14:10) - Orientation to others (1:16:04) *Definition* (3:25) (28:04) (56:06) - Intellectual independence (19:04) (1:17:59) (1:19:05) (1:21:20) _You are responsible to form judgments_ - Existential independence: (1:24:22) _You are responsible to live by the work of your own mind_ Next book (1:35:46) Egoism (1:38:11)

[@periteu]

Question: What does being "oriented to reality" entail? I’ve identified three potential aspects-are these correct? 1. By "reality," does it mean both perception (external) and internal experience, emphasizing awareness of what actually exists? 2. By "oriented," does it refer to being mentally prepared to think when reality demands it? 3. Does it involve recognizing that reality is the only source of knowledge?

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Wow! I actually learned something here. Specifically the PIE methodology. The bridge from thought to action. Take the definition and derive a principle, then apply it to the intellectual and existential aspacts. I MIGHT have been doing it without knowing it explicitly, since, even before contact with Rand, I often used Philosophy as a tool of prediction. Since prediction involves actions over time, it is dynamic (whereas "identity" is static), that would necessitate being able to integrate over time to extrapolate upcoming conditions and actions. That would necessitated being able to derive the integrating principles. It's the kind of thing Rand did when she said "[he, she they] had nowhere esle left to go [their actions over time closed off other avenues, ultimately leaving them with the 'nowhere else']". Peikoff brought that process to the conscious level of awareness. Thank you: Wish I had leanred this 50 years ago when I was 24. Needless to say, I downladed and saved this one

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

As I keep saying "Too many persons equate independence with always saying 'no'. Independence includes knowing WHEN to say 'yes'"

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Getting to the "lie if I ever heard one": Hindsight is better than foresignt by a damnsight

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

My question to this has always been: does the effects of the virtue of Independence vary between men and women? I find that most women seek to share emotional dependence with their significant others. Is there a contradiction?

[@RogerFusselman]

Neither women nor men are philosophically more independent than the other. The validation in Objectivism given for the virtue of independence makes no reference to sex. Women opening up about their feelings aren't more dependent for doing so. A woman who is emotionally open still has to decide what to do with life and live by her own judgment. Read "Atlas Shrugged" for the portrayal of a heroic, independent woman. If you haven't checked out this virtue, please Google the Ayn Rand Lexicon and you can look up the validation of independence online in Rand's own writing. I also recommend Peikoff's work on the topic, particularly in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." The video above is also recommended.

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

@@RogerFusselman thank you, i have read and listened to all the available material on the subject of independence. One of The Atlas Society's strongest claims to the legitimacy of being the true representative of Ayn Rand's work is their assertion that men and women think differently. They describe Ayn Rand having a masculine mind; on being mostly concerned with the external and less of the internal. Example: All of her heroes and heroins are engineers who are overcoming people and conquering nature. The Atlas Society emphasizes the feminine mind; mostly concerned with the internal and less of the external. Their content focuses on introspection, human relations, and personal expression. Is this a valid dichotomy, and if not, why does it seem to me that Objectivism attracts men while repelling women?

[@nicosilva4750]

@@justifiably_stupid4998 I disagree with both of these assertions: that TAS emphasizes the feminine mind, and that there is a "fundamental" difference in men and women's thinking. There are physical differences (chemically and anatomically) between men and women's minds, but that doesn't mean there's an important difference cognitively--in terms of being independent regarding cognition.

[@RogerFusselman]

@@justifiably_stupid4998, typically Objectivists do believe that men and women are different, but philosophy as such is not concerned with questions of male and female anatomy or tendencies. Men and women think in the same basic methods: by thd use of concepts grounded in sense perception and ths use of logic. That is neither a male or a female concept specifically. Look at Ayn Rand's own work on epistemology. Read her articles on that. We're all human beings and philosophy focuses on what we as human beings have fundamentally in common. I would avoid this Atlaa Society as a source on Objectivism if they are making mistakes that far from what Objectivism actually says. Granted there are certainly differences between men and women but these cannot be turned into different epistemologies for different people. That would be a kind of subjectivism about cognition that Objectivism does not substantiate.

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

Im trying to be clear that i am not speaking about biological determinism. There are no male brains and female brains, but there are masculine and feminine traits. I dont see any evidence that ARI acknowledges or caters to the feminine traits of cognition.

[@freeenergyeducationinterna1086]

This sounds like that everyone in a city or suburb or even maybe any society are never entirely existentially independent.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

No. AS he said "did you PAY for the groceries". He mentioned and describe what used to be called "counterfeit individualism". In society, "existential independence" means dealing as traders giving value for value, therefore on equal terms. THe money that you give the grocer in trade for the groceries, is the store of value eanred by your effort. Whether you are existentially independent is set by the principle of independents. having your PRIMARY focus, not on the thoughts, feelings or wishes of other people, but on the external world. i.e. "what is true?", not, "what do others believe, think (or even know) or wish to be true?"; carried out on the existential level The funny thing about that is when you reach that stage, you are able to enjoy relationships with other persons because you are not looking for them to be your source of truth which means you also fear them since you would be demeaned by their disapproval. You cannot both fear and enjoy something since your enjoyment would be tainted by that fear and you could not give yourself fully over to that relationshop and enjoy that person unabashedly. Mull this one over: When asked what one's greatest value is. Rand said "Another rational person"