The role of philosophy

One of the most concerning aspects of society is the fact that most people are prepared to engage in life without a system of thought or a value system. They will have a career plan, a shopping list, but they will not develop an explicit value system.
Stranger still is the tendency for people to start studying philosophy when they reach retirement. A philosophy is a system of thought which is intended to help you achieve your goals, yet people engage in philosophy at the end of their life, when they have nothing else to do. How profoundly silly is that.
I can't profess to being much different until I was 19 years old. I did however spend a lot of time reading science. The logic fascinated me. I also had an interest in finance (money) and politics, however those interests were only fully appreciated after I had read Ayn Rand's book 'Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal'.
During my science degree I devoured all of Rand's books. I always did things to the extreme. I purchased many of her speeches which had been bound up into books, and I watched taped lecture courses along with other students. It was a surprisingly fun experience. I never expected philosophy to be fun.
I have long since stopped reading Rand, but I have remained committed to her philosophy, though I would not describe myself as 100% accepting of her views. I differ from her on a number of issues, such as:
1. Empathy - she gave it no merit, though perhaps not hostile to it
2. Politics - she did not profess much other than small government
3. Moralism - She seemed to label anyone who disagreed as immoral, when they might be better be described as scared or motivated by fear. True to her philosophy, they were certainly living by values not consonant with human values. But was her labelling any more 'goal-directed'.
4. Strategy - She believed society would change when the intellectual class was engrained in her philosophy. I think more likely that change will come from two sources - a groundswell of support from actors like Angelina Jolie as well as High Court judges. I believe that judicial activism is likely to emerge as an important basis for political evolution.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Atlas Shrugged - the movie!

A great movie is in the making - after a painstaking 15 years - the best selling book 'Atlas Shrugged' is being made into a movie. The leading actress playing Dagny Taggart will be Angelina Jollie - which is cool. Based on the article I have read by Robert James Bidinotto (see http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/071013-bidinotto-atlas-shrugged-movie.php), the producer and script writer will do justice to the movie.
I suspect the reason why this movie took so long to make was the length of the book and its intellectual themes. There may also have been the odd film executive against the project, but Ayn Rand really did pack alot of plots into this movie, though I suspect the producer and script writers will do a great job drawing out the essence of the movie. Based on the current schedule, the movie is likely to be released in the USA in 2009.

Atlas Shrugged sale boosted by Alan Greenspan and Amazon exposure

There was a well written article on Forbes this week - paying a a tribute to Ayn Rand 25 years after her death and 50 years after her best selling book 'Atlas Shrugged' was published. And you wonder why I flog this book - see http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/09/27/unsolicited-advice-aynrand-oped_meb_0928unsolicited.html. This book is more popular than ever and it sells better than those current best sellers, 50 years later. Its never been out of print. It sells like the Bible, but thats about where the similarity ends. Apart from the link to Alan Greenspan I think Ayn Rand is attracting sales because of Amazon book reviews - people either love her or hate her.

A Qualified Tribute to Ayn Rand

I was first introduced to Ayn Rand at the age of 19 by my boss at Pizza Hut. I was interested in politics and economics since I was raised in a house that talked about such things. Anyway my boss suggested that she was an 'absolute genius'. Well I dont much believe in genius today....I just reflect on how people's values are developed and the extent to which a person's philosophy of life leads them to develop their minds or lets them stagnate.
It would be fair to say that when I was introduced to Ayn Rand I was a quiet, shy, very ambitious and curious guy, with a strong desire to learn and to apply what I had learned to the real world. I had only just commenced my university education, but I has read alot of economics, politics and science already. The first book my manager gave me was Ayn Rand's 'Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal'. Ok....my manager had my attention. Ayn Rand was brilliant! I never knew people could think with such clarity. Her thinking was so systematic and she defined her terms, and they retained a solid 'grounding' in the facts of reality.
University was a testing ground for me. I was challenging everyone I met, even friends, with the new ideas I was being exposed to. But far from learning from others, I was perceived as a threat and put down. I came to realise that people hated her. I think in this climate it was easy for readers and supporters of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to feel alienated and self-righteous. It made me more keen to change the world, to learn more. The problem was I lacked the people skills to change minds. A close friend on mine said 'Andrew - people have to like you before they will listen to you'. The difference was most people hated me once I opened my mouth, perceiving me as a threat, whereas this girl shared my sense of curiosity. She is without a doubt the most courageous girl I have ever met. She didn't let others affect her the ways others did. She filtered ideas before she accepted or rejecting them.
Over time I came to appreciate the knowledge and empowerment that I had gained from Ayn Rand and her associates Leonard Peikoff and (former) Nathaniel Branden. I had truly developed as a thinker, and I never found any other philosopher who shared the objectivity, clarity or insights of Ayn Rand. In fact I received 'other philosophy' as just being irrelevant, detached, unstructured, vague and unreadable. I think alot of people reading it for the first time must think it profound because it isnt intelligible...'above them' in some respect.
So I reflect on the philosophy and feel pride for the way it has advanced my thinking. But in another sense the philosophy was damaging to me. I had become alienated and impractical. Snubbed by people as provocative, disloyal, intimidating, 'not fun', negative; I was destined to fail as long as I stayed this way, unless I detached myself from society. I did the later. I was either feeling comfortable being around others or conflicted dealing with work colleagues, but otherwise I was just different. I was intense, direct, inquisitive, problem-solving, but for others I was judgemental, intrusive and cold. They really just didnt get me. I understood them, but at the end of the day, true to my (differing) ethics, I viewed values as objective, and they didn't. They didnt mind if their values were grounded in facts. They didnt think an 'IS' implied a 'OUGHT', they saw no link.
In more recent years I have come to question aspects of the Ayn Rand philosophy. From a psychological perspective it bothered me that I was not achieving the success that I had expected for myself. In defence of Rand I had my own issues, and a 'new philosophy' is always going to be undermined by opponents who hold the political power. But aspects bothered me. I didnt like the fact that it empathy has given no standing. The psychology side of Objectivism seemed under-developed. And contrary to what Ayn Rand said, I think all philosophies tend to engender some degree of rationalism, and her philosophy is no exception. I found a great many Objectivists to be rationalists and almost 'God fearing' in the sense that they would pose issues as 'What did Ayn Rand say about that?' in the first instance.
The other aspect that I didnt like about Objectivism was the bitterness displayed by the founder. Ayn Rand did not appear to be a happy soul to people outside her 'inner circle'. I was not concerned because I 'got her' conceptually, and saw these negative perceptions as reflecting on her negative childhood growing up in Russia. Conceptually there was alot to appreciate about her. Her love of those values which she saw as the essence of the United States - that is freedom, individualism, creativity, aspirational romanticism and egoism. She was about looking up...though she seemed bitter that they seemed to take for granted or were indifferent to the values that had made the USA possible.
No book written by Ayn Rand has ever disappointed me. I agree with critics that her concretisation of themes in her novels can be repetitive but I think her intent her was reinforcement of values that were contrary to many readers, so she thought perhaps she needed to challenge them, to reinforce good values. I think alot of people will attack her 'style' because her values are so different from theirs. People either love her of hate her. It tends to be peopl strong in the 'objective sciences' like engineering, accounting, economics, science that seem to appreciate her more. The BA types seem to scorn her, and few women seem to get her, interpreting Objectivism as 'unfeeling' or 2-dimensional. Most of those who hate her want to destroy her through smear, and so she is constantly misrepresented.
She deserves to be read. I recommend reading the following books in this order:
1. Capitalism - The Uknown Ideal (non-fiction)
2. The Fountainhead (fiction)
3. Atlas Shrugged (fiction)
4. The Virtue of Selfishness (non-fiction)
If you are a fan at this point, I would recommend the Ayn Rand lecture series. I did this with a group of university admirers and it was very enlightening and fun. Leonard Peikoff is an entertaining speaker. The fact that her books have never been out of print is testimony to the fact that she will have a 'timeless' impact, and I think alot of people would 'downplay' her influence on them. She has made philosophy relevant and meaningful...and 'professional' philosophers are scornful of her because she is popular and they remain irrelevant. She stands alone whilst most philosophers are just a rehash of early influences. Ayn Rand cites just a few soul mates - Aristotle (philosopher), Frank Lloyd Wright (atchitect), Victor Hugo.

See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_24/c3937137_mz030.htm - my public tribute to Ayn Rand.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

The problem with pragmatism

The problem I have with pragmatism is that it flips ethics on its head. It takes practicality as the standard – that is ‘whatever works’, giving rise to the adage ‘if it works don’t fix it’. But works by what standard? So your politics is kind of running ethics. Something has to ‘work’ or be good by some standard of value. Rand links this to the science of human nature, and in so doing offers a metaphysical and epistemological justification for her ethics. It tends to be at ethics where I disagree with her…and that arises because of differences on our understanding of psychology. However I do regard her protégé Nathaniel Branden ‘The Psychology of Self Esteem’ as very good on this subject.
Reading a blog post by Josh at www.outlandishjosh.com who cites philosopher Richard Rorty, suggests that “Metaphysical debates — are we really alive? what is truth? — are largely pointless”. Well they aren’t, even though most people take them for granted, since it’s the very reason that pragmatists flip philosophy on its head. What would prompt a person who thinks you can’t be certain or know the nature of reality to profess knowledge of ethics.
Josh also says some interesting things, I guess again citing Richard Rorty or John Dewey, the more notorious American pragmatist:

1. “The concept of a Absolute Truth (or, in an older context, God), in addition to being fruitless to pursue, is often really a dodge for authoritarianism”. Coincidentally, people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument”
I would argue that authoritarian actually stems from an attempt for self-mastery over others, and that comes from a loathing of human nature, a belief that you can’t know. Science of course is a slap in the face of that thinking, and can be hardly be regarded as an authoritarian pursuit, notwithstanding the contradictions of a great many scientists. Science is very much still ‘mastery’ of facts of reality not of or over people. Science presupposes an objective world, pragmatism a subjective one. One wonders how Dewey and other pragmatists can even bother writing a philosophical treatise given their ardent skepticism…since how can they know at all, certain of themselves. The last point “people tend to appeal to God or Absolute Truth when it supports their side in an argument” fails to appreciate the dichotomy raised above. Actually people lacking self-mastery, that is confidence in their own judgement, tend to impose their judgement on others. Its no accident that they tend to loath logic and egoism….yet usurp others right to self-reliance.

2. To the extent that we ever know Truth, we do so via a social process of consensus. Even hard science works this way (peer review), so we should embrace this concept, and resist the notion that this consensus can be created by an individual and enforced through the power of it’s own (self-referential) validity ala Monotheism or Fascism.
Actually it would appear that a great deal of science does ‘think collectively’, which explains why there is a great deal of ‘bad science’ being published. But remember that whilst science does seek ‘peer review’ and scientists do collaborate, its not for collective truth, but for validation. Scientists collaborate not because their consciousness needs to plug into another, but because groups have more resources. At the end of the day a mind is autonomous. Some ‘one’ has an insight, others grasp it because they accept an objective reality, others refute it because they too recognise an objective reality. Everyone has the capacity to know or err in that task. The better you think, the better prepared you are for life.

3. Democracy is better, both in terms of individual liberty and in terms of effectiveness in producing human happiness. Per utilitarianism, maximizing human happiness is really the only outcome that makes sense to pursue.
Democracy is to politics like markets are to economy….they are only as strong as the weakest participants. Given that most people are poorly trained in the art of thinking, we tend to get poor results from democracy. So rather than reason (objectivity or scientific method) being the standard of value, we have politicians appealing to fear, emotion, even faith. Any philosophy that subjugates a person’s logic to the fears, whims or emotions of others is on a course towards collectivism. The practicality of science and economy are the only obstacles to authoritarianism. Utilitarianism is a collectivist philosophy that subjugates the rights of individuals to those that profess to represent ‘society’. The lack of sustainable support for politicians suggests that’s a rare best, and in itself still lacks objective validity. But that’s ok if their candidate can’t impose their will on others.

4. Likewise, the only meaningful definition of Reason is, “can you participate in the inter-subjective process of communal inquiry as to how to maximize human happiness?” The idea that Reason is aligned with Absolute Truth or God is another rabbit-hole/authoritarian danger zone.
Well how is he going to prove it? How can he assert anything? Even if collective support was a basis for truth, how could it be revered as such since it has to start with one consciousness. This is the basis of authoritarianism.

Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard. It usually is...the question is whether its good or bad reasoning....make it pertain to reality. The best way of doing that is to provide examples.

General: What is the starting point for philosophical inquiry?

The issue of this essay really concerns the structure of knowledge. When we discuss the foundation of knowledge, its readily apparent that it starts with sensation > perception > basic conception > abstract conception. This hierarchy should be readily apparent to us if we observe children or reflect on our own childhood.
When humans are conceived they progress from subconsciousness to consciousness, but their existence as independent beings starts in a total unknowable flux of sensations, for which they have no idea whether these sensations are for them or against them. Birth allows them to rise to a new level of awareness, where they have use of the 5 senses:

1. Sight
2. Sound
3. Feel
4. Smell
5. Taste

Its only over time that a baby is able to integrate these sensory experiences into percepts. Percepts are the basis upon which we establish the Law of Identity - recognition that things exist with a certain nature. Another element of that law is that things possess to relationships to other things - sameness or difference. Our basic conceptual development allows us to distinguish attributes and differences between entities. Higher level abstract thinking allows humans to progress beyond the level of animals, where we are able to establish `causation` - that is direct and indirect relationships between things. The highest abstractions involve relationships between many concepts, eg. discussions of politics, which culminates in the confusion on such matters. But the contention with these issues often has less to do with complexity but lack of accountability for our thinking and evasion by those whom are wrong. Those issues pertaining to human values take on greater personal meaning than purely scientific facts. Issues like philosophy (ethics, politics) are fundamental to every human, so its not surprising that most people are defensive on such issues. Being wrong invalidates not just an isolated premise, but may well undermine the `whole world view`. By necessity - its always personal.

Philosophers vary in their starting point. Some take `the good of society` as the standard of value and construct a philosophical framework for human ethics from that. The error in this approach observed by Ayn Rand is that proponents of it subsume a certain relationship between men - an ethic of self-sacrifice or servitude to the state. This thinking has dominated philosophical thought for thousands of years, and was only questioned implicitly by the Industrial Revolution during the 1700s by the likes of Adam Smith. Smith and others were of the Utilitarian school that saw capitalist greed serving the `good of society`. Ayn Rand was the first to recognise a theory of values which frees the individual from `social` or state-sanctioned values.

Ayn Rand identified certain axioms (self-evident knowledge) that no one could refute. These axioms are:

1. Existence exists
2. Consciousness perceives that which exists
3. Law of identity - to be, is to be something, to possess attributes which distinguish one entity from another. The legitimacy of `reason` as a cognitive tool is closely linked to the law of identity - that entities have a nature, and cannot behave contrary to that nature.

Ayn Rand recognised that philosophers had to accept these basic premises.

I would invite anyone interested in philosophy to read the following books to get a better understanding of philosophy:

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (introduction to philosophy ideas)
2. The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff (well explained theory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

Politics: Common political misconceptions

Political organisations or mere individuals are often categorised as `left` or `right`. I want to argue that this dichotomy is erroneous, as well as offering reasons why.

Contemporary thinking is that - the poles for debate lie between Socialists (extreme left) and Fascists (extreme Right). Liberals and democrats are identified somewhere in between and are interpreted as `moderates`. Foremost these terms demonstrate how words are misused. Lets consider a few here:

1. `Extreme`: What is wrong with being extreme. How can an adjective have any meaning divorced from a noun. It just shows you how concepts can be used to disparage others and avoid intelligible debate. No one would argue that extreme virtue, good health or honesty are bad things. In reality it depends on the context. Does to serve life or undermine it? Human thought has progressed greatly over the centuries. Contemporary values would be regarded as `extreme` by people living just 100 years earlier. The facts of reality have not altered such would demand a change in values, just we are freer today, thus able to redefine our values. There are 2 ways you can change your values....by implicitly accepting or `absorbing` contemporary values, in which case you are likely to have little self-efficacy since you have subjugated your mind to a pollster`s parrot. Or you can develop an explicit set of values where you pro-actively define the type of person you are. We all have a philosophy - the question is - `do we know thyself` and are we `being effective`.
2. `Moderates`: By what standard could `moderation` (the mean) be considered a standard of value. Either the facts support one position, or another, but what justification is there for accepting a consensus between 2 opposing concepts. Should we not embrace principles - which pertain to facts of reality - if they are based on natural laws? What basis is there for accepting anything but principles that pertain to human nature (philosophy) and the nature of existence (science).

Continuing on from this thinking, its apparent that contemporary thinking is flawed:

Left (socialism/communism) <<<>>> Right (fascists)

The problem with this thinking is the following:

1. Arbitrary concept: Both extreme Left & Right poles do not pertain to the facts of reality. The concepts are based on arbitrary constructs which stem from the fact that fascists have fought communists. But that saids nothing, since communists are prone to fight communist.
2. Common ethic: The Left & Right of politics have the same ethics fundamental. Political structures do not exist in a vacuum, rather they reflect the values inherent in a society. Both socialism (Left) and fascism (Right) hold the same ethical premise that all men exist for the sake of others. You can add religious values as well - all assert that humans should find virtue in the sacrifice of self - whether to the poor (socialism), God (religion), dictator (fascism) or the environment (greenies).

Its apparent from the above that there is one important measure by which politics should be measured - its the ethical relationship between humans. There are fundamentally 2 choices in principle:

1. Selfishness: Either humans live for their own sake, embracing their own happiness as their primary value, or
2. Selflessness: Humans exist only for the sake of serving others. Such an ethical premise treats humans as either sacrificial fodder (suckers) or perpetrators (bullies) imposing their standards on others.

But ethical concepts have a broader context as well. In fact there are several levels of thought pertinent to people`s relationship to other people, and it starts with the nature of reality, next we need to consider our relationship to reality. To elaborate:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality vs Subjective Reality

Epistemology: Reason/logic vs Irrationalism/emotions/passion/instincts

Ethics: Selfishness vs Selflessness

Sense of life: Romantic values vs Naturalistic/Tragic values

Politics: Capitalism vs Socialism/fascism

These philosophical poles are `extreme` by most people`s standards because people place little trust in principles, they are prone to distrust ideas and accept the operating mode of the moderates - the status quo, or the intellectual bromide of the mob or unthinking majority. We thus have liberals,moderates or democrats embracing some compromise between these 2 poles. No one would argue you should be too selfish or selfless, rather they would prescribe some moderate position between. The idea that you should pursue the middle-ground was advanced by Aristotle 15 centuries ago, but it really highlights human ignorance of human nature. Consider the following:

1. Metaphysics: We are arguing here for a subjective or objective reality. Its difficult for anyone to argue that they can evade the facts of reality (objective reality) because few people would walk in front of a speeding car, since they don`t believe they can escape their nature as a human being merely by willing it.
2. Epistemology: Epistemology embraces the study of human`s means of thinking & acquiring knowledge. People often justify actions at a level of abstract values by appealing to emotions. They fail to recognise the proper relationship between thoughts & emotions. Emotions are not tools of cognition, but rather the product of thinking in the context of our values and experience. The fact that we can have very different emotional responses in the same crisis is evidence of that.
3. Ethics: There is no question that human survival requires thinking - even at the level of a cave man. Cave men had to fashion tools and to hunt with a strategy in order to survive. Since prehistoric times, humans have recognised the benefits of specialisation, which has given humans a greater level of autonomy in terms of the productive process, but less independence in terms of his product output (because he is producing a surplus for sale). Whilst he necessarily requires a degree of empathy to meet the needs of the customer, humans have a hierarchy of values (incorporating survival needs & expressive values) they require from their productive work. It is by necessity that human effort is selfish, in the first instance to support his immediate survival, in the second instance to support his desire for self-expression and personal efficacy, and in the 3rd instance to support those values in others (generosity as opposed to altruism). There is no justification for supporting poor values (altruism) when there are more positive values to reinforce among those with conflicting values (moderates). The error arises because values are perceived to exist in a vacuum, as opposed to being considered in the context of a person`s life, their nature as a human being, or their previous experience. The subjective would argue that - if he wants it, its a value. The objectivist theory of value argues that values must be considered in 2 respects - the fact that we want it and why? The subjective theory permits a great many people to rationalise that they are helping others (virtuous) when in fact they are self-serving (in their pursuit of subjective values - since they have not earnt it honestly).
4. Politics: There is a dichotomy between capitalism and collectivism (any form of government that sacrifices individual values to God, nation, the poor or the environment). Capitalism is a socio-political system based on the protection of individual`s from the use of force or fraud by others. It embraces relationships between individuals and organisations on the basis of negotiation and contracts. Such a political system requires a high level of personal responsibility so its important that individuals embrace a set of values consonant with that political system. If they don`t, then they are embracing conflicting values at odds with the facts of reality, and at in opposition to their nature as human beings. Such conflicts underpin the modern liberal.

The intellectual framework for the modern liberal is a compromise between these poles. The liberal concludes that there are things beyond his control so gives some credence to a subjective reality, whilst respecting the contribution that science has made to human progress, thus reinforcing the existence of an objective reality. In epistemology, the liberal regards both reason and emotions as legitimate tools of cognition, not in fact recognising their proper relationship. For him there is thus a conflict between his thinking and emotions. The liberal takes the subjective theory of values which saids that anything a person values is in fact in his interests. eg. Suicide is a justifiable goal because he wants it, even if the decision is not supported by the facts of reality. He thus regards selfishness as greed and selflessness as kindness, when neither is the case. In politics the liberal supports free markets regulated by governments to preserve the interests of the poor and downtrodden. He is thus an advocate of a mixed economy.

Philosophical values also impact upon a persons sense of life - whether they are tragic or reflect favourably on others. Whether they are tight (suspicious & scared) or generous (trusting & confident) when dealing with others.

As a university student, the university press argued that the extremes were evil because capitalists sacrificed the interests of the poor for the rich, and socialism sacrificed the interests of the rich for the poor. This is nonsense. True socialists do sacrifice the interests of the rich, but they will similarly sacrifice the interests of the poor to justify their existence (retention of power). By way of example consider that taxation was imposed in the US upon the `rich` landowners, but now everyone is taxed (sacrificed). Nor is such sacrifice about problem-solving, abolishing poverty, its an end in itself. They would merely lift the standards of what constitutes poverty to justify their existence. In North Korea, socialism has forced the poor into poverty....the poor being anyone without special status or connections. The country is falling apart because there is no one left to sacrifice. They now resort to intimidating the western world to win food aid concessions. Its all about preserving their power....its never about defending the interests of the poor.....if it were, why would they be socialist. What precedent exists to support the practicality of socialism? Where? In which century? A rationalisation might be made here & there because a socialist government has coersed a remaining capitalist class (China), or production increased at the expense of other resource allocation (Cuba), but really there is no long term evidence of socialism (or collectivism in general) causing anything but destruction of wealth and personal egos.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

General: What is the role or relevance of philosophy?

When I was 18yo I was fortunate to have been introduced to philosophy. When first introduced to it, I responded with the same apprehension that grips most people. `Ideological nonsense detached from the real world`. I thought my suspicions would be validated by reading the first chapter. Boy was I wrong. In the last 18 years my interest in philosophy has expanded into philosophy, as well as enhanced my understanding of economics, science, politics, ethics, law, and other subjects.
That is not to suggest that the suspicions that people have about philosophy are not wrong. I came to realise that not all philosophies are the same, in fact a great many of them are destructive. Of course my support of a particular philosophy has to be questioned as much as any other. So I encourage people to learn philosophy so they can determine what system of ideas offers them value. I see the role of philosophy as giving people:
(1) A method of thinking
(2) A system of values
The benefits of philosophy are thus:
(1) Greater mental efficacy
(2) Greater understanding of the human sciences
(3) Greater confidence
(4) Greater personal effectiveness
(5) Greater curiosity
Results are by no means guaranteed. We are all introduced to philosophy at different stages of our life, and we bring to it a specific set of values cultivated by our own thinking and the environment in which we are raised. One of the greatest benefits of philosophy in this context is the belief that we can ultimately know, though we might struggle to understand ourselves and others.
Perhaps the greatest failing of philosophy is that it has remained a `pure` abstract science. To some extent it has been overshadowed by more applied thinking, by subjects such as `life coaching`. This is an unfortunate development because such self-improvement books lack the depth of understanding to be helpful to many people. That`s not to say they offer no value, just that their effectiveness or applicability will be undermined because they are concrete-bound. Perhaps there biggest failing is that they lack any code of ethics, or reference to a theory of values. A life coach might assert that we should pursue our values, whatever they might be, whether they are based on sound thinking, a reasonable understanding, or not. Pursuit of such values might be to impress others. Many of them in different chapters might highlight the dangers of such thinking, but its because some psychologist has asserted this premise, rather than reflecting any theoretical understanding of human nature. For this reason, a great many human scientists are left concrete-bound, unable to anticipate human behaviour. Its my pride that I can anticipate such events with greater predictability. Thats not to say I have mystical powers of prediction, just that the science of humanity offers some scope of predictability like the physical sciences based on cause & effect.

It is this understanding that prompted me to predict that the US coalition`s efforts to rid opposite in Iraq would fail, and that democracy was not possible for all of Iraq. There necessarily had to be a separation of fates between those that believed in freedom and those that believed in coersion, recognising that they are philosophically poles apart.

The road to philosophical understanding is not all gold. I have struggled over the years to deal with the fact that the great majority of people don`t think. I have spent alot of time bashing my head against the wall proving it. I spent alot of time being self-righteous, in the process demonstrating the impracticality of being right, and the practicality of being goal-orientated. But thats not to suggested I abandoned principles, but rather that I had to broaden their applicability to embrace my goals. For example, having shunned the education system that assigns an intrinsic value to `accredited` qualifications, I sought to become self-employed and prove my own effectiveness in the market. In the process, I have avoided working with people that dogmatically accept the status quo, an instead sought to produce my own results, even though they fall short of my effectiveness had I been working within a team. Its a far better solution than having others undermine your values.

I was never going to work well in a team with such values. I would have been vulnerable to their entrenched `social` values, and they would have been vulnerable to my reproach. I know in abstract terms that we are incompatible, and they have a `sense` that I don`t fit in their organisations even if I brought untold productivity to them. Assuming I would feel comfortable there....and of course I couldn`t because I`d have to downgrade my expectations.

Perhaps the most important premise I have grasped....somewhat belatedly... was the need for empathy and to be goal-orientated. These are related and critical to personal effectiveness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.