Charity is not always well conceived

My first post on this blog for some time. I've not lost interest in philosophy; its just that I'm not ready to blog when I've not quite finished my book series of theory on philosophical values. Give me another 6-8 months and I should be there. If you would care to register your expression of interest, you can email me here.

The reason for writing today is not what you might think it is. Here is a case of a 'hero', who has appeared on 60 Minutes, but in fact he is not a hero at all. In fact, he is an all-to-common human who happened to come a 'hero' after making a lot of money. I would also argue that people don't reconstruct their lives, their entire theory of values, in a heart beat. It takes a long time. It takes a long time because people these days are not terribly intellectual at the best of times. There is a reason why Hollywood content is not good; they are appealing to the 'self-evident'. Of course that takes a 'system', but the model is not particularly difficult. So let me outline a model of humanity which might diminish your view of this modern-day hero. It draws on excerpts from an article in the DailyGood.org.

"Scott Neeson left Hollywood to save children rooting in Cambodia's garbage dumps. He sold his mansion, Porsche, and yacht and set off for Cambodia to provide food, shelter, and education to destitute children. Scott Neeson's final epiphany came one day in June 2004. The high-powered Hollywood executive stood, ankle deep in trash, at the sprawling landfill of Stung Meanchey, a poor shantytown in Cambodia's capital....[Today], Scott Neeson, a former head of 20th Century Fox International, cares for more than 1,000 Cambodian children and their families".

This is of course the basis of Christianity and socialism - sacrifice of one's personal interests to something less; after all, if anything was gained, it would not be a sacrifice, right? The popular misconception is that 'helping others is servitude'. Why did he leave then, since he was well-paid to serve demanding actors prepared to pay a great deal. If he was indeed a 'great altruist', then he should have suffered in silence, gathered all his income, and invested in the starving children, not of Cambodia, who actually have scraps to pick over, but in the most destitute kids in the world, the children of Africa, who don't even have the luxury of scraps. Why didn't he invest in these places? Perhaps because he had no personal conntext. i.e. He didn't pick up a map and a book and study the world, and decide, 'here in the most destitute place in the world, I'm going to save this corner of it'. No, he did not think that way. It seems more probable that he made a personal connection with these kids; moreover, he was confronted by derision for Hollywood in the same instance. This is not altruism; its self-importance, so why do we learn later of his derision for 'the ego'. 

The difference is that he has created a value proposition where he is beholden to no one. He sounds more self-important than ever, and because he has achieved the much heralded 'accolade' of sacrificing his material interests, as if that was ever in question, he is destined to be praised by a great many unthinking liberals and conservatives alike. That is until he asks them for money; at which point they will need to distance themselves from his apparent virtues...simply because the more objective exponents among them might feel compelled to do more than they are already doing. Of course, they are probably equally as deluded, so maybe its equally as easy for them to distance themselves from that world, as they can always construct their own illusions. Now, the mark of humility is not expounding your virtues. So how was it that this story got out in the first place? Was it leaked? Anyway, it does not matter, because he has not distanced himself from the idea of being a 'hero'. He has not distanced himself from the altruist creed. No, I think we can fully expect him to mobilise to raise money through it.

Now, should I begrudge a millionaire spending money on the starving in Cambodia. Well, actually I will, because starvation in Cambodia is not the problem, its the consequence, or symptom of the problem. Might we consider it 'part' of the solution? No, its actually part of the problem. The ethical pretext under which this 'liberal' is functioning is the problem, because his values don't just manifest in him acting on a personal level, they manifest in liberals extorting similar influence from governments all around the world. The reason they are not effective is not because:

1. They don't have enough power over governments

2. Neeson's liberal friends are not as 'generous' as him

Neeson is acting it seems, or allowing his name to be perceived as sanctioning charity on the basis of 'altruism'. That is the 'problem'. I frankly don't think that is his motivation, for the reasons I have outlined. The problem is that he has perceived himself 'pragmatically' to be functioning under this premise, and has not corrected it. This results in a great deal of moral obfuscation and ambivalence that undermined motives and political justifications for a great deal of public policy, and no one is interested in these 'fundamental' critical issues. These are in fact the critical issues which need to be addressed before we even reform our political system. The problem is that people are so 'dumbed down' and uneducated beyond their 'compartmentalised lives' that they are not in a position to deal with these issues. They are only capable of showing their derision for any 'pertinent' ideas, or they are otherwise at evading the issues to similar effect. Neeson did not 'avoid a problem', he defined the problem in concrete terms that he personally could deal with. There is nothing altruistic about that. He did not raise to the challenge; he sunk to a level where life was no longer a challenge. He didn't like his life in Hollywood; he left it. He quick without making Hollywood a better place. He was there for the money; not for the movie making. These are the things he claims to have given importance. I don't think his business model has changed. Today he is still appealing to the 'dumbed down' self-evident, and we are still watching crappy Hollywood movies. 

Even if he did repudiate his 'perceived altruism', in fairness, it would only affirm the idea that he was humble by downplaying his heroism. People don't really care about facts; they will affirm whatever values they want to believe. You only need $1 million to 'survive' or sustain your life. Clearly he realises that you can't take the money with you [to heaven or some collectivist utopia]. It would mean nothing for him to jeopardise it all because he has built in essence a brand. 

Neeson overheard the actor griping in the background. 'My life wasn't meant to be this difficult'. Those were his exact words, Neeson says. "I was standing there in that humid, stinking garbage dump with children sick with typhoid, and this guy was refusing to get on a Gulfstream IV because he couldn't find a specific item onboard", he recalls. "If I ever wanted validation I was doing the right thing, this was it".

So he goes from self-important actors verging on the deluded to starving children. Was there not a space in between? Was there not some middle ground, or was he just looking for a new challenge. Sounds like the machinations of an 'ego'; but not the 'pseudo-ego' he is accustomed to seeing in Hollywood. Perhaps he never understood egoism. Running a business, you'd think that he'd leave and set up his own business. That would be self-important to, but I suggest it would demand a sense of efficacy I suspect he did not possess. The efficacy I'm talking about is not the 'people skills' that saw him running a business, but the discipline and knowledge that he could have easily outsourced to others in a large organisation. When you run your own business, you have to be more responsible for everything because you don't have the same resources, though clearly he could make a better go of it than most people by virtue of having a large amount of cash. 

Much to everyone's surprise, within months the Australian native, who as president of 20th Century Fox International had overseen the global success of block-busters like "Titanic," "Braveheart," and "Die Another Day," quit Hollywood. He sold his mansion in Los Angeles and held a garage sale for "all the useless stuff I owned." He sold off his Porsche and yacht, too. His sole focus would now be his charity, the Cambodian Children's Fund, which he had set up the previous year after coming face to face, while on vacation in Cambodia, with children living at the garbage dump.

Overseeing success is not really the same as being creative. Perhaps it was a rather shallow 'achievement' in the sense that he only needed to suck up to important people, and that just came natural to him. I suspect that he felt like he never 'earned' that success, that he was only one step away from losing his job. I suspect he left because of a self-doubt rather than anything else. If there was any shortcomings in Hollywood, he had the opportunity to change the culture, if he knew how. I am not impressed by this gesture at all. 

"The perks in Hollywood were good – limos, private jets, gorgeous girlfriends, going to the Academy Awards," says Neeson.... "But it's not about what lifestyle I'd enjoy more when I can make life better for hundreds of children".

Clearly the perks were supposed to be good; but at the end of the day, it impressed others, apparently not him. Yet this was important to him for many years, whilst a great many people do not seek it. Did he simply 'have enough', or did he come to appreciate the folly of it all. Maybe he felt so self-important that he thought he could be no more self-important than snubbing demanding actors, and embracing people who have no qualms at all about the quality of his support. Starving people will tell you everything you want to hear. You don't have to do much if you want to impress starving people. So there is effectively no 'counterparty' at that end. Of course, I dare say, he is not going to sustain spending his own money, so he will want to tap into some of those Hollywood actors who has has previously shown dismay for. Of course, some of them will want to suck up to him, if only to avoid him telling the media who were the difficult actors to work with. Oh, but don't we know them all?

Not helping the poor; the ethical construct he made above. Ask yourself, what's wrong with being a productive member of society in Hollywood. He didn't have to leave that job to help people in Hollywood. In fact, he could have helped them more with his quintillions if he stayed there and employed people. He is positing himself as a selfless man; he's not. He's just redefined his self-interest. Sadly, its not a healthy construct, but if you have no empathy for his self-interest, you might superficially say that 'he's helped children'. Not saying he should have stayed at his company, but its really a straw argument/choice. There were many other things he could have done. But people can be impressed by the fact that he's at the coal face - one man helping others. It reaffirms people that at least one person in the world is pursuing their 'noble ideal', or most particularly a wealthy person. But its not unusual for people to help. Angelina Jolie, Bill Gates,  Oprah Winfrey, are among a cast of many to help others. What is particular about Neeson is that he is a businessman who snubbed 'materialism'. The reality however is that most business people care little about opulence; as we are accustomed to expecting from Hollywood celebrities. 

The problem is the ethical construct that leads to poverty; not this deluded 'lone' act, which no one else can bring themselves to follow, which does not address the real 'fundamental' problem. I'm not attacking his charitable motivations; I am critical of his motivations and the rationalisations that he is tacitly permitting by not repudiating them....but read this...

At times he even sounds like a Buddhist monk. "You've got to take the ego out of it", he says. "One person's self-indulgence versus the needs of hundreds of children, that's the moral equation".

The implication is that he is not an advocate of egoism at all; he is advocating altruism, or the repudiation of self-importance. Does he not identify the identity which states these words. Can he distance himself from his own mind? Never discount the capacity of a person to do so. The problem is not the ego, whether in Cambodia or Hollywood, the problem is what neither culture has fashioned a set of values which conveys a coherent notion of what it means to be an egoist. After all, it was not the West that made these 'starving kids' poor and destitute, it was Cambodian values. Neeson does not suggest as much; but neither can be point to any 'altruistic culture' which has elevated the lives of people. He is doing so, not from altruism, but from:

1. Unsustainable resources earned in a productive 'egoistic' market economy, which merely fell into the hands of an ambivalent custodian of said funds

2. Resources derived from people with a similar ambivalence about whom they trade with; or with no discernible notion about what values actually achieve one's optimal interests. 

Source: DailyGood.org 

------------------------------------ 

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

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.