User:CurtisEdward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello; Cec are my initials, which I use on Wiktionary. I am a metaphysical cosmologist (see metaphysical cosmology) and cognician (see cognition), currently writing a book called "Pretensions of Perceptions: Viewing the World as a Single Intelligible Object." A free copy will be sent to each speaker from the Conference of the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, [1] last November. I can be emailed at advocatesmanifesto@yahoo.com [2] Advocates' Manifesto.com [3] is the publisher. I recently edited some of the defs. at "ego," and "perception" and "cognition" to include the Objectivist definition, and added a few comments to the talk page at Objectivism.

The short section below is from the book mentioned above. It has a few more months, perhaps, before I finish it, but it has already been about two years in the making--or longer.

Chapter Eight: Logic

© 2007 Curtis Edward Clark

(section) I

Ethical Self-Primacy Defined:

:Definition: egoism: rational indulgence in self without denial of the parity of others to the same.

:Definition: egotism: irrational indulgence in self, perhaps in conceit or arrogance, or selflessness, while at the same time possibly but not necessarily denying the parity of others to enjoy freedom from your coercion.

Egoism is the ideal of the ego, the "executive" in the rational actions of a person. Ethical self-primacy is the ideal of egoistic ethics. That means it is the ethical ideal of egoism, of accountability for one's own actions, of self-interested Man at his most rational. This Man qua Man, the egoist, acts toward others with an ethics of equality, of unalienable rights among all men, with ethics of parity that places himself neither above nor below others in their executive powers of ego. Definition: laissez faire; let be done what will be done when what is done is non-coercive. "In the well adjusted person the ego is the executive of the personality." [See previous chapter.]. :Definition: rationality; acts of the executive ego. ["Rational egoism" is redundant. "Rational egotism" is a contradiction in terms.]

Any act of coercion is of psychological harm to the one who is coerced. The ethics of self-primacy is a product of the executive ego, of egoism, and its primary pretension is to be laissez faire psychologically and to do no harm toward others. In other words, to be non-coercive and to allow, within its powers, to allow no coercion to be used against it. The egoist's psychology can allow neither harm to himself nor harm to others at his hands. Politically speaking, egoism allows no coercion to be used against others by anyone, least of all by the government. The axiomatic "standard operating procedure" of egoism is thus: Act; and in action, do not do unto others what one would not allow done to oneself. Let me repeat that: a psychology ruled by the laissez faire ego is characterized as "Egoism is as egoism does." The definition of egoism given above does not allow for acts of harm against others, yet it is able do anything at all, when it is itself un-coerced, that an egoistic mind can conceive of.

:Definition: ethical self-primacy; a rational code of laissez faire acts of the ego. Cosmologically, ethical self-primacy places oneself in the world in a position of parity with all other persons no matter their race, creed, sexual orientation, politics, etc, so long as those other persons recognize your parity with themselves.

Egotism is not "ethical self-primacy," because the object of egotistical volitional acts is another person(s), e.g., doing unto others. The object of all volitional acts of ethical self-primacy [egoism,] is the self, in the benefit of its own pretensions of volitional acts, without thought to others except in the act of not doing unto them. Ethical self-primacy is contrary—but not contradictory, to the "Golden Rule." It is contrary because it does not deny the validity of the laissez-faire-ism of the Golden Rule; it merely asserts that a different ethical precept is epistemologically and psychologically more befitting of egoism. The Golden Rule, according to the King James Version of the Bible reads, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…" [Italics added.] This is perfect if one wants to always center his consciousness unto others in order to "do to them," but this then, follows the definition of egotism, i.e., an irrational indulgence in self by concentrating "self" onto the existence of others. At the same time, such indulgence is overtly laissez faire. Do what one wishes so long as it not coercive. But a "commandment" is coercive because it leaves little room for laissez faire acts of kindness, courteousness, and parity; a "commandment" is just just that, coercing one to always think of others before self and this is not reasonable, no matter the pretensions of the ends. The means of achieving the Golden Rule is what is contrary to ethical self-primacy. If one remembers not to do things to other people while his executive is in free rein, he will not have to remember not to do things. Egoism does not allow "doing things" to other people except when uncoerced. But when one is in a situation where he must think of the consequences of one action verses other actions, then the "Golden Rule" of self-primacy is, "Do no harm." If egoism is rational laissez faire-ism, than ethical egoism is as egoism does, unable to do harm, while being self-indulgent to whatever degree one wishes to indulge.

Proposition: If all (egoistic) rational acts are self-directed, [all A are B]

and if some (egotistical) irrational acts are self-directed [Some A are B] and some are not, [Some A are not B] then:

egotism is either contradictory to [(O)](see syllogism, then Inference rules), or the sub-altern of [(I)] egoism [(A)].

This means simply that not all egotism is a contradiction of egoism, but it is still not-egoism. Egotism can be of [(I)] (1) mental illness, in which case some acts are not rationally self-directed,; or they are (2) "pleasure principle" oriented wherein a more immediate gratification of the will occurs.

As the contradictory, egotism is either [(0)] (1) mental illness; or (2) self-less. Egoism is totally selfish, even when acting to benefit others without regard for one's own welfare. But such acts are not Dogmatic, nor are they otherwise coerced. They are of the self-directed free will; therefore, all self-directed rational acts are egoistic. Self-directed free will requires that all intellectual pursuits be laissez faire. Egoism is as egoism does.

[1] From previous chapter. "Irrational behavior without denial of parity under any circumstances concerning any subject where it affects other right to do as they please," is a definition, perhaps, of a mentally ill person or someone who does not care about his own life—a selfless person?—but who will not volitionally deny parity. I guess if you want to heap nihilism upon yourself, you have that right. But the mentally ill in this nation who are a danger to themselves and are given little or no medical supervision need to see a better system put in place. America needs a better system. Let's talk charitableness here; we support homeless shelters where many mentally ill spend time, but we won't support the idea of large, community-like institutions in which to put them in order to monitor their well being because they cannot do it for themselves? Do not do to others…well, thank you, but put me in an institution if that happens to me.

 Most of us swing like a pendulum between Reason and irrationality. Most of our irrationality does not coerce, meaning it does not initiate aggression to a point of being considered actionable by law. Who among us can cast the first stone at someone else's explosion of anger, or at his sudden realization that he has just been a damned fool, much to his chagrin! Take life seriously, but take it lightheartedly. Just don't initiate aggression that breaks parity. If it is not actionable by formal law, it may be actionable by civil court. Just do no harm, and that is reasonable defense for one's actions. Harm done accidentally is still harm.