Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to another episode of the secular

Foxhole podcast.

Today we have a special guest.

Aaron Smith is with us from the Aindrand Institute.

Aaron is a fellow at the institute where he lectures and develops educational content for

the institute's intellectual training and outreach programs.

He's also a member of the Einran University faculty.

How is that university going, Aaron?

Oh, it's going very this.

The Aynran University is an educational

product or program, if you want to call it that, that the institute offers where you can

study Einran's philosophy, objectivism, with the experts at ARI.

So all of the faculty are phds in philosophy and also experts in Rand's philosophy in

particular.

So we have numerous courses that people can

take live.

So you log on live via Zoom.

There's a whole classroom in front of you, a bunch of different faces, as well as the

faculty, and there are short assignments that you do on a weekly basis, and you get grades

and feedback and so on.

But yeah, no, it's going very well.

It's growing as well.

I'm glad.

Well, the reason I have you here today is you

recently wrote an essay.

It's called one of stoicism's worst ideas.

Could you summarize that for us and then I'll throw some follow up questions at you?

Sure, yeah.

I should say just one word about a little bit

of background.

Is that, yes, I've been writing a number of

pieces on stoicism and done a number of podcasts on stoic philosophies.

This is an ancient greek philosophy that's becoming very popular nowadays, or at least

it's becoming sort of marketed to a popular audience and it's gaining a lot of adherence

and popularity and so on.

And one of the reasons I wanted to start

writing about this is.

So my background is in ancient greek

philosophy.

So my phd was in ancient greek philosophy.

It was on Aristotle, not the Stoics.

But I have a heavy background in that.

You know, objectivism, Ein Rand's philosophy is a philosophy for living on earth.

It's a philosophy to help you guide yourself in the functioning of your life and towards

successful living.

And stoicism is a philosophy that's being

promoted today as a version of that.

Right?

It's meant to be a philosophy to be lived, not just an academic subject, but as a philosophy

to live by.

And what I found interesting was, well, what

is the guidance they're offering people today? How are they framing Stoic philosophy as a

valuable, or allegedly valuable tool to help you live better, live a better life, reduce

the anxiety you have.

What's wrong with that?

Right.

That kind of life advice.

Yeah, is good.

I think people should be turning to philosophy

for that kind of advice.

And so there's something healthy about people

looking back to philosophy, particularly pre christian philosophy, like greek philosophy,

for advice about how to think about life, how to frame your life, how to have a perspective

on it that is valuable and helpful for you.

That's what philosophy is for.

And so what I wanted to do is look at what stoicism as a philosophy actually tells you

about human nature, about the world you live in, about how to function in life.

And then sort of as a parallel to that, how is that being marketed today to a popular

audience who, they're not the scholars of ancient philosophy or anything, but how is it

being marketed? And this was just sort of the latest

installment of articles on this topic that's just a little bit of background, and then I

can.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Yes. But again, go ahead, Martin, if you want.

Yeah. Aaron, do you know if Ms. Friend studied or mentioned the Stoics?

No, she doesn't mention the Stoics.

In passing.

She mentions the german chancellor.

This must have been in the 70s, who mentioned

Marcus Aurelius and the idea that we have to do our duty.

And she mentioned his comment, and she thought, if that's all they learned after

World War II, we're not in a good position.

In effect, I'm paraphrasing, but no, she'd

ever wrote about the Stoics.

There are two books, I mean, at least two

books that we know she read that were kind of large histories of philosophy, which included

sections on the Stoics.

I've read those sections, and they're fairly

conventional presentations of stoicism.

I mean, as is often the case in kind of a

large scale history of philosophy, you get a unit devoted to that.

But I don't think we have any sort of marginal notes in those books.

I don't think we have the physical copies of those anymore.

So it's a kind of a dead end in that regard.

This article, the one I wrote, called one of

Stoicism's worst ideas, and of course, the title is a bit grabby, or maybe grabby, but

controversial, has to do with the respect in which stoicism is advocating a kind of

collectivism.

The idea that the group or the whole or the

collective as a whole is what matters.

That's what's most important, and you're just

a part of that, and your value really comes from your role in contributing to or serving

that whole.

And so here's how this came about.

So Nancy Sherman, she's a professor of philosophy at Georgetown University, and she's

written a lot about stoicism and ancient philosophy in general.

And she wrote a book called Stoic Wisdom.

I think the subtitle is ancient lessons for

modern resilience.

I believe that's what it's called.

And she published a number of articles sort of promoting themes from that book.

And one of the themes that she stresses in the book is that contrary to the popularization of

stoic philosophy today, kind of on the Ryan holiday model, if you're familiar with him,

one of the major popularizers of stoicism, she says, look, ancient philosophy was not, it's

all about you and your personal development and how to supercharge your career.

And so it was not about you as an individual, about your life, your self improvement, your

self development.

It's too focused, the modern perspective that

she thinks the modern populars are focusing too much on the individual.

And she says, if you look at ancient stoicism and you take that philosophy seriously, it's

not an individualistic philosophy.

And what the Stoics teaches, the stoics we'll

talk about to the extent to which it's individualistic or collectivistic or whatever,

there's a lot to explore there.

But she says, if you look at what the actual

ancient stoics say, they really emphasize the idea that the individual is a part, a

fragment, like a limb of a larger cosmic entity.

And the individual's proper role is a devotion to the common good, to the whole.

And they have a kind of a deeply religious perspective on the world.

So the idea is, and bear with me here because this sounds a little strange, but whatever,

that's a stoic view, go for it.

So the idea is that the universe as a whole,

the cosmos as a whole, is God.

And it's in a way that there's a divine reason

that shapes, permeates everything in the cosmos.

It's the only active force in the universe.

Everything else is passive matter.

And that individual living organisms are, in effect, held together and permeated by this

divine reason.

So for human beings, they agree that human

beings, man is the rational animal, right? Reason is our distinctive characteristic.

It's what makes us human.

But even our own reason is a fragment of the

divine reason within us that permeates everything else.

So there's a real sense that you are a part, a fragment, a chip, a piece of a larger cosmic

whole.

And since God the divine reason, they don't

think of it as well.

I don't want to get into that.

This divine reason shapes everything providentially.

So everything that happens is for the good, and it's all sort of divinely sent.

So if you're born a cripple, that's what God wants you to be.

And so you should play that part well in the divine play, so to speak.

So whatever happens to you is good, and you have to view it that way.

And so you have a role or a place in a cosmic whole, the good of which is the most important

thing.

So you might think from your own limited

perspective, look, my child was hit by a truck.

And you might think that from a limited perspective, that that's bad, that you've

suffered something terrible or catastrophic or some evil has befallen you.

And their answer is, no, that's not really true.

Everything is divinely sent.

Everything is for the best.

If you could see the whole perspective of how this fits into the whole cosmos, it all fits

into the web of the cosmos.

That is ultimately what the good is.

It'll articulate that last part.

And so you should accept what happens with

equanimity and even with praise or joy from that regard perspective, because it's all

coming from the good, but it's the whole that matters, or at least that matters most.

Yeah.

And so this quote I have from Epictetus, this

captures this.

I'll read this, and then I'll just be quiet.

Go ahead.

He says, this is Epictetus.

So he's 50 to 135 AD, and he says, for those of you who don't know him, he's a major

teacher of stoicism in the roman period.

So he says, consider who you are.

You are a citizen of the world and a part of it, one of the leading parts, because you're

capable of understanding the divine governance of the world and the implications of that

governance.

So what is the job of a citizen?

Never to act in his own interest, but to behave as a hand or foot would.

If it had reason and was able to understand the natural order of things, it would never

have inclinations or desires except by reference to the whole.

Hence, if a truly good person were to foresee the future, he wouldn't resist even illness,

death, or mutilation, because he'd realize that it's what he's been allotted at the

behest of the universe, and that the whole is more important than the part, the city, than

the citizen.

And I think that expresses the point

unequivocally it requires unpacking, I think.

So the idea is that the individual is a part,

a fragment of a larger whole, and that the well being of that whole, the good of that

whole, supersedes anyone's private interests.

And I think that's the essence metaphysically.

That's the essence of collectivism.

And that's really where the focus of the

argument is.

There's a metaphysical perspective of an

individual's relationship to the whole that is collectivistic metaphysically.

And the ways in which that is being used, in this case by Nancy Sherman, like a modern

philosophy professor, to push a kind of a collectivist ethos.

She's leveraging that, I think, metaphysically collectivistic sort of view of the individual.

To kind of push a collectivist ethos, well, we should devote ourselves to the common good and

so on.

And that's what concerned me.

It's the leveraging of that metaphysical perspective to push collectivism today.

Yeah, that was the focus of the article, and I argued that you're not a hand or a part or a

fragment of some larger whole.

So the metaphysical perspective is false, and

I argue for that.

We can talk about that if you want.

And it's also dangerous, I think, to think of oneself as I'm just a part.

It's not the place of the hand to complain if you're know your role is to go step in the

muck and get cut off if the body needs it.

And so I don't think it's the right way to

view yourself as an individual.

That's correct.

Well, I wanted to quote one sentence from the

article from you.

It's quote Sherman's secularization of stoic

collectivism may be more palatable to a modern audience, but it is a view of man and of

society that is both false and dangerous, unquote.

So, yeah, when you were talking there, images flashed in my head of, well, this sounds like

there's some christianity in there.

There's platonism in there, there's turn the

other cheek kind of thing.

Love your enemies just because everything's

been divinely sent down, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

Well, there's an element to that, and they don't advocate, like, abject self

sacrifice.

That's not what they do.

And we can talk about, and I'd actually like to talk about a bit about to what extent

stoicism is a self interested philosophy.

They have a view of self interest, which is

interesting, no pun intended.

But the turn your other cheek thing, there's

an element of that in stoicism, in part because they're determinists.

But their view is that people only.

This is coming from Socrates, by the way.

This is Socrates's view, one that Aristotle challenges but Plato accepts, is that no one

does wrong willingly.

And this is all over.

Plato is that when people act in ways which we regard bad or evil, they're doing so because

they think that what they're doing is good for them.

Now, they may be really confused about what's good for them, but every individual, and this

goes to their psychological egoists, if you want to put it that way.

Philosophically, their view is that everyone acts for the sake of what they take to be

their own interest, necessarily.

That's just how people are built.

That's just what they do.

Now, they could have all sorts of screwed up

views about what's actually in their interest.

And so most of what greek philosophy or most

greek ethical theories argue that what you need to figure out is what is in your

interest, taken long range and as the whole, and as a whole over your life.

Properly understood.

And the properly understood is where

everything gets packed in, because it depends on what you think.

Self interest, quote, properly understood, really amounts to.

And you can have very different conceptions of what that is.

The stoics have a particular conception of that.

Plato has another one.

Aristotle has a different one, sure.

But.

Yeah, so it's not exactly self sacrifice in a

kind of christian way, but I think it's when push comes to shove, private interest needs to

bend to sort of speak public interest, or the interest, alleged interests of the social

whole.

And in that respect, it's more collectivistic.

Now, you said there is some aspect of self interest in socialism.

What is that?

Sure. Yeah. So I'll read you a couple of quotes because they're really illustrative.

I usually don't like to read a whole long quotes, but I'll read a few.

Go ahead.

Just so you can get a flavor of this.

And you can hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

And not just my spin.

So this is Epictetus's discourses.

These are taken down by a student of his named Arian.

It's not literally Epictetus, but it's lectures taken down by a student.

So this is in discourses book one, chapter 19.

For anyone who wants to look it up.

He says, quote, it lies in the nature of every living creature, that it does everything for

its own sake.

And in general, he, namely Zeus, God, has

constituted the rational animal to have such a nature that he cannot attain any of his own

particular goods without contributing to the common benefit.

And so in the end, it isn't antisocial to do everything for one's own sake.

After all, what do you expect? That one should show no concern for oneself

and one's own benefit? How, in that case, could all living creatures

have one and the same principle of action, namely, attachment to themselves?

So a couple of things going on here.

One is, the stoics have this doctrine called

Oikaosis.

And it means that every living organism has a

natural built in orientation toward itself, toward its own physical constitution and

toward what preserves its constitution.

And they draw all sorts of examples from the

animal world.

The young calf or bull, will sort of butt with

its head because it's oriented toward itself in a way.

It knows how to use its faculties and its abilities, and it will naturally seek out its

mother's milk because it preserves it.

It'll naturally move away from or have

aversions toward things that hurt its constitution.

And he says, you see this across the animal world.

So it's like nature.

God has built us to be naturally oriented

toward our self preservation and to what preserves that preserves ourselves.

And so they think, yeah, it's nothing wrong with self interest.

In fact, you ought to be acting that way.

Nature has, in effect, nature.

God has, in effect, shown us the way that that's appropriate for living organisms to

engage in self preserving action.

So they're not anti self interest in that

respect.

But it's also important that that's the way

we're set up from the beginning.

And that once we reach the age of reason,

however, and we start to be able to contemplate our own nature as a rational being

and the universe as a product of a divine reason.

And we're able to contemplate the fact that we're a part or a fragment of that total

cosmic whole, and that our good is bound up with the good of that whole.

And we start to come to realize, they think a rational being would start to come to realize

that, yeah, working for the common good of that divine whole is, I shouldn't exactly say

supersedes, but in effect, it does.

That's what's most important.

So working for the common good, so you move from a natural orientation towards self to a

conception of what's in my self interest that involves me being a part of a wider whole.

So they think of my devotion to the common good or the social whole or whatever, as that

is now the way in which I pursue my self interest.

So they're trying to push against the idea that it's self interest versus.

It's devotion to the common good versus self interest.

They try to tell you that.

They try to package those together and say,

there's no contradiction between these two, because if you and somebody, they have this

formulation.

This comes out in Marcus Aurelius.

I don't think he originated it, but it's what doesn't benefit the hive, doesn't benefit the

bee.

And you can translate that in different ways,

and it's worth unpacking.

But I think the idea is that the way in which

human beings pursue their self interest as rational adult beings is to work for the

common good and think of the common good and the good of the whole in every action that we

take and have that as our main reference point.

So we never think of our own private interests as distinct from, or in separation from the

interests of the whole.

So it's complicated in a way.

So on the one hand, they're saying, yeah, self interest for sure, but they're giving you a

conception of what that amounts to.

That winds up meaning devotion to the common

good, and having that as your basic frame of reference in all that you do.

And I don't think that amounts to an individualistic philosophy.

Yeah, I'll give you one more.

Just follow up.

Okay, one more.

There's plenty to follow up there.

And this just gives you a sense about.

More on the issue of self interest.

So this is Epictetus's discourses, book two, chapter 22.

He says this.

Haven't you often seen how little dogs fawning

over one another and playing together, which prompts one to exclaim, nothing could be more

friendly.

Like, isn't that cute?

Right? That's the editorializing.

Okay, back to the quote.

But to see what that friendship amounts to.

Throw a bit of meat between them, and you'll know.

And likewise, if you throw a small bit of land between yourself and your son, you'll know how

impatient your son is to see you buried, and how greatly you in turn long for the death of

your son.

Throw a pretty girl between you, and both fall

in love with her, the old man and the young.

Or again, a scrap of glory.

For as a general rule, and one should have no illusions on this matter, there is nothing

that a living creature is more strongly attached to than its own benefit.

So whatever seems to him to be standing in the way of that benefit, be it a brother or father

or child or lover or beloved, he will proceed to hate, reject, and curse.

For there is nothing that he loves so much by nature as his own benefit.

For that reason, if one identifies one's own benefit with piety, honor one's country, one's

parents, one's friends, all of them will be safeguarded.

But if one places one's benefit in one scale, and one's friends, country and parents, et

cetera, in the other, the latter will all be lost, because they will be outweighed by one's

own benefit.

For on whatever side I and mine are set to,

that side, the living creature must necessarily be inclined.

Close quote.

So the idea is this is psychological egoism,

that man is by nature determined to pursue what it takes to be in its own interest.

That's just how you're built.

You don't have no choice about it.

So what he's saying is to have an enlightened view about your self interest, you have to

make damn sure that things like piety, honor one's country, parents, your friends, the

community, whatever, you have to learn to think of those selves as in your interest,

because if you don't, you won't have any motivation to have any interest in those kinds

of things, and you'll see them as, in fact, antagonistic toward your own benefit.

Yeah, right.

So a number of philosophical issues come up.

Is. Is that true? Objectivism, as a philosophy rejects

psychological egoism.

I do not think it's true.

I know Ayn Rand doesn't.

I don't think it's true that human beings by

nature and necessarily pursue what they take to be in their own interests.

I mean, the whole phenomenon of altruism, where it's, you think of self interest as

evil, as bad, that's what makes you a bad person.

So when you think, I could do that, but that'd be kind of selfish, I probably shouldn't do

that.

Now, the way to spin that is, so what the

person is really doing is they're saying it's in my interest to be ethical.

And so when I give up self interest, my true interest, I take my true interest to be being

a moral person, and that's more important than the money or the job or the girlfriend or the

whatever it is.

But I don't think that's the right way to

frame it, because there is such a thing as thinking of something is to your advantage, to

your benefit.

And there is a moral perspective that says

that's wrong, and that's why one experiences pain, resentment, and so on when you act

contrary to your self interest.

So, anyway, that's a longer topic, but there's

an essay called in the virtue of selfishness.

One of the essays in there is called isn't

everyone selfish? And it addresses that question of

psychological egoism.

I don't think they're right about that.

But that was widespread in ancient greek philosophy.

So it's not unique or weird or anything to the stoics.

It's the socratic view.

It was Plato's view.

It's the Stoics view.

Yeah, okay, psychological egoism and Ayn Rand Zigoism.

Can you describe the.

So for first of all, psychological egoism is a deterministic doctrine.

So it's not that you've decided that as a matter of orientation to life, you're going to

pursue your own interest.

That's just how you're built.

Psychological egoism says, that's just how you're built.

You don't have any choice in the matter.

And Rand says, yeah, you certainly have a

choice in the matter.

You can live like a medieval saint, or you can

pursue your own career and think of what your own happiness, your own private, personal

happiness, consists in and work to achieve it as an explicit policy, you can take your own

life and your own happiness as your ultimate value, such that you can organize your values

and your value pursuit around that goal.

And that's a self interested life by choice.

So that's an ethical egoism.

But it's not psychological egoism.

You're not psychologically built, so you have to function that WAy.

She thinks you have to choose that.

You have to choose self interest, and there's

all sorts of ways of being confused about what's in your interest, and you can go wrong

in all sorts of ways.

But that's a choice.

It certainly has to be learned.

Yeah, it takes a long time.

Yeah.

And I don't think it's also true that certainly human beings, I mean, animals, come

equipped.

They have a repertoire of actions and

responses and reflexes and behavior and so on.

That is, I think, evolutionarily sort of

structured such that they pursue things that they need and avoid things that they don't.

But even that is a limited set, and they don't do it by choice.

They don't consider a variety of moral perspectives, and then they select this one

because it's like, that would be great, but human beings, I don't think, they're not born

toward that, except for the pleasure, pain.

Something hurts and they might jerk away from

it.

But beyond that, you don't have any guidance

in life and you're not built with it.

The OTher Thing is that objectivism takes

man'S life as the standard of valUe.

And so the idea is, when you're trying to sort

out what's good and bad.

What you're trying to sort out is what's pro

life and what's anti life.

What's antithetical to life, harmful, damaging

toward it and what sustains and promotes it.

So it's self consciously oriented toward the

good of man's life and not mankind.

But just like what, as a human being makes its

life go well? And so your orientation as individuals.

What makes my life go well? What kinds of methods of functioning do I need

to engage in.

To live successfully as a human being?

What kind of values do I need to sustain and promote my own life?

And that's what morality is all about.

The standard of value, to the extent that you

can identify one in stoicism, I think, is something like that which is in accordance

with nature.

So as God has set it up.

So if we seem to be naturally oriented toward our own self preservation, you should be

oriented.

There's normative force to that.

The way things are by nature is the good.

And so when you're trying to conform to

whatever happens in the world.

You're trying to conform to what God has sent

down, so to speak.

You're trying to conform to that which is in

accordance with nature.

So when you're trying to live, it's, well,

what is a human being? Well, we're a rational human being.

Therefore I ought to conform to being a rational human being.

The universe is set up by a divine reason.

Who providentially and benevolently organizes

the world.

So I should treat whatever happens in the

world as God sent and good.

And not get frustrated about it, angry about

it, resentful about it.

So it's conformity in some sense, to God's

will, conformity to anything that happens.

And that's very unlike objectivism.

It's not.

Nature has set up x. Therefore you should

conform to it, let alone any kind of divine being.

It's what do I need to survive as a human being.

And flourish as a human being.

And then to choose to embrace it consistently

across one's own life? And people who are interested can look into

her book the virtue of selfishness.

Particularly the initial essay called the

Objectivist Ethics.

Which goes into her orientation to morality in

some detail.

That's a tremendous essay.

Tremendous. Yeah. And complex.

And complex.

And even as a complex.

In one of the longer essays that she wrote.

She regards it as a distillation and a summary of her ethics.

Not this is the detailed treatise.

It's a distillation and a summary.

So it's complex as a summary and what's complex by its very nature, but it's also a

summary.

So there's a lot to unpack in that essay.

Did she ever expand on that in other works?

Well, I think she regarded as like the false statement is in Atlas Shrugged.

Yes, of mean.

That's one of the interesting things about the

way Einran does philosophy, is she formulated her philosophy so that she could write her

novels and project the kind of characters and situations and conflicts that she wanted to

project.

And so after she finished Atlas Shrugged in

1957, she got a lot of questions from fans of her novels, like, can you elaborate on this

point or that point of your philosophy? And so she started writing some newsletters

where she would elaborate on elements of her philosophy in essay form, in like nonfiction

form, and apply her philosophy in that perspective to all sorts of elements in the

culture.

But I brought up the issue of self interest in

the context of stoicism, because some of the criticisms I've gotten mostly from Donald

Robertson, he's the kind of figure in the modern stoicism movement.

He's written books on stoicism and so on.

He's got a Facebook page that he moderates on.

So he interprets.

What I'm doing in that essay is saying, well,

you're making stoicism out to be this collectivist viewpoint.

And it sounds like you're trying to say it's all about self sacrifice, and as if stoicism

was against self interest.

And I don't actually say that in the article,

I don't make that argument.

So I think that's a misreading of my argument.

But there's a sense in which it's understandable, because I don't address in the

article I was going to, but I decided not to, just for the sake of delimitation, but the

issue of how they think about self interest.

And so it's good to talk about that a bit

today.

I guess I've already done that.

But they have a view of self interest, and it's not all about self sacrificial service to

others on some sort of christian model.

But nonetheless, if the idea is that your main

focus in life should be the common good, that is not an individualistic philosophy.

I don't think it's a self interested philosophy.

And particularly if the idea is, if push comes to shove and it's private interest versus

public interest, so to speak, and public interest should count.

There is an element of self sacrifice there, even if they try to say no, but the way in

which you achieve your own good is by serving the common good.

Now, you can make that kind of claim, but I think it's.

Aaron, to take like a devil's advocate question.

If we are individuals and we voluntarily join a free society in that social context, how

would that work both with objectivism and the rational form of stew?

I'm not sure if I understand that.

If an individual voluntarily chooses to be a

part of a free society, because you're not initiating force against others, you engage in

voluntary agreements and contractual agreements, and you trade and use reason, not

force and so on.

So if you do that, what then?

Yeah, so isn't that.

Then it's not a common good, but then it's, as

you said, voluntarily.

But we are in a social context.

And.

Yeah, I think I see what you mean.

So objectivism would reject the idea also that

there's a necessary clash between an individual's self interest and society, if you

want to put it that way.

I think that an objectivism thinks that if

individuals are functioning rational according to rational self interest, their interests

don't actually clash.

And she has an essay about that.

It's short and dense, but it's very good and insightful.

It's called the conflicts.

And the conflicts is in quotes, like scare

quotes, the conflicts of men's interests.

It's also in the virtue of selfishness where

she talks about this.

She says why there are no necessary conflicts

of interest between rational men.

But if each of us is pursuing our own

happiness, pursuing our own goals, pursuing our own career for our own personal, private

happiness, and not using force on other people, that's the best kind of society.

So it's my pursuit of my career.

So I'm a philosopher by profession, and I

teach and I write and I give talks and interviews and things.

And it's like my pursuit of that goal just for my own personal interest, think about what

that involves.

My whole career is helping others.

That's what I do.

That's what a teacher does.

You try to advance a student's understanding.

I mean, you might think this is a bad

philosophy and you shouldn't be teaching.

You could say, all this is horrible.

But what I'm saying is, I don't think that.

But what I'm saying is that if I pursue my

self interest, it's at the expense of other people.

I mean, if you're producing some kind of value that's worthy of trade, you're often producing

something that people actually find valuable and are willing to pay for and to support and

so on.

Yes.

You're actually benefiting others.

Yeah. My main focus is not how can I help people?

It's how can I do what I love and I choose something that I think is personally important

to me, personally meaningful to me.

I enjoy the helping.

I enjoy the fact that I'm advancing people's understanding of philosophic issues, and I

think helping them better integrate this in their lives so that they can live better

lives.

I mean, this is part of what's interesting

about my work, what I take myself to be doing, but it's not altruistic and it's not self

sacrificial.

So I don't say, well, help other people and

grit your what I I do what I like because I enjoy it.

But I think that there's not a clash in objectivism between the pursuit of rational, I

mean, the common good.

I mean, Einrand has this whole view, but the

common good, there's no such thing as the common good.

There's something really wrong with that whole concept.

If it means anything rationally, if it has any intelligible meaning, that's not mystical.

It means the good of every individual, just taken as an aggregate.

And if that's what you mean, then there's some sense to it.

But even if objectivism says no, your goal is not to work for, to increase the total

aggregate of individual good, that's not your goal.

Again, I think that's altruistic.

But the way in which it's presented in

stoicism is the common whole, really is the cosmos, the divinely infused cosmos, and man

as a community, as a sort of global community of rational beings taken as a kind of family.

They think all mankind are kin in some respect by virtue of the possession of God's reason

within us.

So we're kind of like family, and we should

treat outsiders and others more like kin and like you're all one big family.

And their kinship, their obligations toward kin that they think we should increasingly

kind of take on, again, that's more altruistic.

Yes.

Yeah.

And Aaron, thanks for replying in this way, because then I could do a short plug and

then Blair could continue to.

If you value this conversation and this

knowledge, thanks to Aaron and our podcast, you could then send a donation through like

boostogram or streaming Satushis.

So go to Truefans FM and join there, sign up

for an account, and then Blair and I will talk about this in a dual episode in the so back to

you, Blair.

All right, thank you, Aaron.

What are some of the other criticisms you've

received.

Yeah. So one was about stoicism and self interest, and the other one was about the

respect in which it's individualistic or collectivistic.

Let's see if I can pull this up.

Yeah, and this is coming along the same kind

of vein.

So on Twitter, Donald Robertson says,

stoicism.

Quote, stoicism doesn't reject individualism

per se.

It argues that the interests of the

individual, properly understood, coincide with those of the whole of mankind.

This article misrepresents the stoic position and thereby commits the fallacy of the straw

man.

Nobody wants to be accused of committing a

straw man, but it does happen.

So it's not surprising that someone might

think that if you don't address or talk about the respect in which an individual's good,

properly understood, coincides with the good of mankind.

Now, I think there's a respect in which that's true, that an individual's interests, properly

understood, coincide with those of mankind in the sense that what individual human beings

across the board need as human beings is, in essence, the same, and they should function by

the similar methods.

They should pursue the similar kinds of

fundamental values that they need, just qua man, just because they're human beings.

So in that sense, pursuing one's interest is in harmony with and in line with what

everybody else needs.

But if you take that quote seriously from

Epictetus, the whole is more important than the part.

The city is more important than the citizen.

So if you take that, there is a kind of, well,

you should never act in your own interest, but behave as a hand or foot would if it had

reason.

It realizes, look, it's a part, you're a part,

and there's a larger hole.

And wouldn't you object if your foot decided,

well, I'm not going to walk today.

I'm not going to do it.

I don't want to.

Who's going to make me?

I'm not going to do it.

I have other interests.

I just want to just sit here and not move anywhere.

You'd be like, you're a foot, damn it.

You're not your own individual autonomous

agent.

You're a limb.

And the more you think about yourself like that, and they're pushing you to think about

yourself like that.

That is not an individualistic perspective.

I think what individualism requires is the full grasp metaphysically that an individual

is an autonomous agent.

And that doesn't mean he can meet all his

survival needs as a baby or an infant just born.

That's not what it means or a lone wolf.

Or a lone wolf.

Yeah.

It means that as a human being, you are a

separate living organism and that your means of survival is the use of your individual

reason to pursue the goals that you need to sustain your life and to live it.

And that what you need is freedom, in effect, to live by your own judgment, to live by your

own reason, to enact what reason prescribes, if you want to put it that way.

But it's not a focus on, well, the whole is more important than the part.

The city is more important than the citizen.

No, it isn't.

I would say it's not the city or the whole or the collective that's the primary.

A collective or a society or a group is a derivative phenomenon.

What really exists are individuals.

A society is just an abstraction.

A society is the way in which we think as a conceptual whole, a group of individuals

living together in the same area, following certain kinds of rules or accepting certain

kind of laws, and they interact with each other and so on.

It's an abstraction.

It's a way of holding a number of individuals

who exist separately but who interact with each other in all sorts of complex ways.

The society is not an entity that can have a good, that you can work toward its good.

It doesn't mean anything.

The only thing it can mean is you work for the

good of others versus yourself.

And that's altruism versus self sacrifice.

Yeah.

Altruism versus.

Yeah.

And that's good, Aaron, because that's probably why I asked that question.

Because in today's discussion, debate in society, and what I see as an american in

spirit, what's going on in America is that you don't have these kind of voices as you are now

presenting it is all about society.

Common, go good.

And the citizens are only like, in a collective in one way, either from the other

side or from the other side.

Yeah. So you get a lot of different voices pushing this view and giving voice to

it.

So you probably all remember, or many of your

audience will remember, I'm sure you do, that you didn't build that comment that Obama made

also.

He wasn't the first to make it, but he gave

voice to it in a way that got some attention.

And the idea is, well, if you got a business,

you didn't build that.

Or at least if you can interpret his comments

in different ways.

But the idea was kind of like, look, okay, you

built a part of it at least, right? It's not like you didn't do anything, but you

use the roads and this is public infrastructure.

And you were educated in government schools, public schools.

And the community has done so much to build who you are that if you're successful, well,

yeah, I guess you can take a bit of credit for some of the things that you did yourself.

But a lot of this is really made possible by others and other people's contributions.

And so don't go thinking you're some sort of self made man or some sort of like, you earned

it all.

I mean, that's just bs on this view.

And it's pushing you to think of, look, you're a product of society and therefore you owe

society if you use the roads or you went to public school.

I went to public school.

I didn't have much of a choice.

My parents couldn't afford private school.

And so you have to go to the state schools,

largely because the state schools have driven out.

They don't exist on the market and so they don't have to compete with schools.

So you don't really get competition in the market of education.

So everything's ridiculously expensive in private schools.

But anyway, I digress.

But there's some contribution from society to

your development.

So you owe society.

And so this is one form in which you're meant to be thought as a part and a product of a

collective.

And so you then, as a result, owe to give back

or they have a right to part of your profits and your proceeds because you didn't do it all

on your own.

That's the idea.

Now, the fact that those contributions were done by force and you had no choice about it,

that's not taken into account morally.

And it should be if somebody robs me, robs my

bank account and builds a sidewalk in front of my house such that I have to walk on it, do I

owe this society now because I walk on the sidewalk?

It's ridiculous.

Or the flipcoin where this called make America great again, so called group that also

have some claims that it's like a nation, they are building a wall or something like that.

Yeah. I mean, nationalism has this view, too.

It's your country, your country.

You owe some kind of service to your country.

Your country comes first, not you.

As an, my individualistic choice might be,

look, I want to move a large portion of my labor force to southeast Asia to help me save

a lot of money on labor costs so I can offer my product at a more competitive rate.

And they.

No, no, you're taking away american jobs.

You can't move your company's employment abroad.

Why? Well, because Americans need.

It's Americans, the collective.

It's a national collective that needs your

sacrifice, in effect, and that's what you owe your allegiance to.

And that's bullshit, too.

Okay, I'll put it in different terms.

That's a collectivist perspective.

We'll leave the actual quote.

I'm happy to say bullshit, because it is if you think it's false, as I do, but it's

a collectivistic view of an individual's relationship to others.

So my final question, Aaron, is.

Why.

Are Ayn Rand's ideas more important than ever?

Question. But I'll put it this way.

I have an answer to this that I think makes

sense.

It makes sense to me, is that she's the only

person, only philosophic figure that I can think of who unapologetically argues and

defends this position, that your life is your own, that the moral life is to figure out what

your own life and happiness require and to go pursue it.

And that that's the moral, that's the good.

And no one else makes those claims.

That an individual has the moral right to pursue his own life and his own happiness

without the burden of service to others, sacrifice to others, and so on.

It's just that your life is your own, and the good is to live it.

And she's the only voice that has that sort of perspective.

And I think it's so needed today.

I think the culture is whatever you think

about.

Oh, people are materialistic, and it's all

about me, and that's all superficial.

The culture is saturated with altruism and

saturated with collectivism.

And I think what you need is a contrast, is

someone that says that all of this is wrong, and at a fundamental level, like fundamentally

wrong, not wrong at the margins, not a little shaky.

It needs to be propped up.

No, it's just fundamentally and deeply wrong

and anti life.

And to offer a new moral perspective, and

that's one of the rarest things to get, is a new moral framework, a new moral perspective,

and one that is life enhancing, life promoting, life sustaining, I think, is what

Einran argues in depth.

And I think that's why we need it the most.

And, Aaron, you said that in the green room.

So if you want to have intellectual ammunition here, you have a project there.

Could you tell about that with audio recordings of Rand's commentary?

Yeah, we do have a new one of the many things that we offer at the Inrad Institute,

we have a series of, in effect, podcasts.

They're like brief episodes of Aynrand

speaking herself in her own voice.

These are recordings that are coming from some

of her Ford hall forum talks.

Some of them are coming from the Q A sessions

that occur after those talks.

And they're sort of smaller byte size or two

or three bytes size clips from her offering a unique perspective on many different things

that are relevant in our culture today.

That's one thing that we're offering.

We have a journal called New Ideal, where we publish articles on a regular basis and

podcasts called New Ideal Live, which you can watch on YouTube.

We also have something called the Einrand University, which is a place where.

Well, I should say place.

It's a virtual space where you can come study

with philosophers and intellectuals.

At the Einrand Institute, you can study

objectivism, like in live courses over Zoom.

There are other classmates, and you do

assignments and get feedback on your assignments, and there are readings and

lectures and so on where you can actually come study formally with some of the top people in

objectivism in the world.

So there's a lot Ari has to offer in that

respect to anyone who wants to take advantage of it.

That's great. Great, Aaron.

Thank you so much, Aaron.

My pleasure.

Today we've been talking with Aaron Smith, fellow with the Ayindran Institute.

And, Aaron, thanks for Manning the foxhole with us.

You're welcome.

You're welcome.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.