Why not? We have just defined savage to be a person who chooses to use emotion to make decisions REGARDLESS of environment. That means that whether or not you use civilization as a noun OR an adjective it is wholly independent of the "savage", is it not? Or do we have to go back to the beginning and edit our definition to include environment in our definition of "savage"?

You are also going to have to place in context your use of the antonyms "private" and "public", because these are merely adjectives - not nouns. Without the noun they are describing, they are meaningless.

Individualism and collectivism describe social mores/structures. They stand on their own just fine.

Freedom vs use of force is not a direct antonym, but I'm going to use it in the context of decision making (unless you disagree) even though they are both extremes that are inaccurate. It is far more accurate to use the terms subject to natural law vs subject to societal law.

I have been to places in this country where there are no electronic communication via cell or landline possible. Places where you can wander until the lack of food or water drive you back to civilization. Places where, if you are willing to hunt and eat what you kill and drink water from the open ground, even these limitations will not require your return.

All these places are hot, dry, uncomfortable to most and to some, inhospitable, but you can live there without interference or discovery except by drones and satellites if you choose.

I agree that existence does not have to be explained. I prefer that existence is explained and consider the possibility that there are things we do not know that factor into our reality.As I said before, I do not see faith and science as opposing forces nor do I complete accept objectivism as my sole compass in life.

LetsShrug: "Where did you get the quote?"

It's from near the end of Roark's courtroom speech in The Fountainhead.

It follows the passage:

""Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience."

So it is in essence a moral statement characterizing human progress and the social conditions required.

Basically it means that civilization is a movement towards a more individual life. A life free from coercion by others or the group. You are allowed to be free and live your life. You only have to share your life with those you choose to share it with. it doesn't take a village in other words.

You will soon realize under Obamacare, that other people will now have a say in how you live your life, because they are now paying for your health care to some degree. Here, in Canada, your lifestyle falls under scrutiny because of our "universal healthcare". People feel very comfortable telling you how to live your life as a result. Then come the campaigns and the high "sin" taxes. Problem is... everything becomes a sin sooner or later.

This is not an easy one AJ.

For a savage living alone neither public nor private has any meaning.

It is only when a savage lives amongst other humans in a group that public and private becomes an issue.

From my readings, Ayn Rand used savages living in tribes as the earliest instance of civilization. Since these societies (American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, Tasaday, etc.) had no system of writing, we really have no idea if they conceptualized members of the their tribe as individuals having interests different from those of the group. Had she posited that civilization is a march from collectivism toward individualism, then "setting men free from men" makes more sense to me.

I'm not trying anything. In fact, the idea that I have to qualify what I believe to you or anyone is offensive.

The odds of any single event happening in the evolutionary process is staggering (and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands), let alone the positioning of the planet in relation to the Sun and the atmospheric composition. Reason suggests that gambling or happenstance is absurd,no? Science deconstructs what already is in hopes of understanding and understanding how it all came to be. Science is incomplete AND has been known to make stuff up to support a viewpoint (man made global warming). So before you dump on someone for believing in anything other than pure reason perhaps you should re-check what you think you really know - the probability of a single step in the spontaneous life theory is beyond reason. Rand is a strong influence in my life not my god and objectivism, while useful in many ways, is not the primary driving force in my Conservative life.

Science does not make stuff up; irrational people (including some "scientists") do.

I never accept anti-reason. Rand's epistemology tells us that existance is simply what it is and does not have to always be explained - it is axiomatic.
That does not make it "beyond reason."

If you feel dumped on by anyone who cannot accept anti-reason, then that is simply a problem of your faith and emotions.

That is absurd. Science is based on reason which is the opposite of faith. Good try.
(This indented format on this blog is also ridiculous.)

Actually you called me a mystic simply because I don't believe in the extraordinary and insanely repetitious good fortune of evolutionary genesis. You see I'm not Christian enough for my wife and I'm far too Christian for the atheists and objectivists. Even so, I put forth a pretty solid sci-fi novel about once a year (next one due 8/14 or so). :) There is no conflict between science and faith unless one makes one.

Privacy vs public, individualism vs collectivism, freedom vs use of force.

Civilization and Savage in the same sentence does not make sense.

Now that we have defined a "savage" as an individual who makes decisions based on impulse or emotion rather than based on logic, I can now address the remainder of Rand's original assertion.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

I would render her statement thus:
"Civilization is the process by which the savage subjects his or her emotion to reason - irrespective of the influences of his peers. Civilization is the process by which men recognize and respect others' ability to choose."

I do not understand her use of "privacy" within this context at all and thus its inclusion in this appears irrelevant to me. If you would care to comment, it may be that the relevance is made clear.

1. See if my clarification works.

On the other point, one can not take the author of a publication as their own validation. That completely violates the principle of independent validation of a hypothesis and introduces a circular reference (ie it is so because I say it is so).

2. Ah, must have missed that. You are correct in that when one self-identifies, to use that term in subsequent interactions it would not be an ad hominem argument as you have both agreed it to be definitional. I shall consider myself informed.

Okay. So savage has no connection whatsoever with environment and refers exclusively to a human who does not makes decisions based on reason, is that correct?

I can agree with that as a definition and thank you for your patience. Definitions to me are fundamental in any philosophical discussion to make sure that we all share a common starting point.

I was just being loose with "environment" while guessing what you might mean; take the word out - not relevant.

Becoming too hard to type in this format. But
1. My explanation on "savage" should be sufficient. Read Rand.
2. AJ defined himself (in diffferent words - I can't find them now) as a mystic. No Ad Hominem argument on my part.

I am apparently confronted by a conundrum, as you use the term savage with the explicit association of a tribal environment, yet simultaneously assert that environment has nothing to do with rational thought. It appears to me that you are attempting to assert A and ~A simultaneously.

Can you try explaining that in a different way, i.e. explain what constitutes a "savage" without ANY reference to the environmental factors you assert don't matter anyway?

1. I am trying to understand how Rand defined savage. That is the key to her entire assertion and a fundamental premise. Until the fundamental premises of an argument have been established and validated, there can be no evaluation of the entire argument. If the assertion is B -> C, one must prove B independently and prior to asserting any connection to C. The quote is insufficient for me to ascertain her assertion of B, thus my examination.

2. Please explain the separations. Again, it is a definitional matter where obviously my definitions of such differ from yours and I am seeking agreement on fundamentals upon which any conclusions may then be built.

3. I agreed. One can learn either through experience/experimentation or through faith - both being valid and non-exclusive. You stated A and I confirmed A as acceptable as a premise.

4. You referred to AJ as a "mystic" - an ad hominem attack via a label. Ad hominem is one of the many forms of logical fallacy in reason. It is frequently used to attempt to divert the discussion into becoming a defense of the target of the comment, rather than focusing on the merits of the argument itself. In this forum, I have seen it used numerous times as a pejorative for someone who believes that faith and reason are incompatible and that therefore they can not possibly come to rational conclusions. I merely point it out because a purely logical discussion avoids ad hominem and other logical fallacies whenever possible.

It is the latter. "Savage" refers to the non-thinking state of man (referring back to tribal man). It has nothing to do with the environment, except perhaps in referring to the fact that man, by his nature, has to act in order to survive in society; and he can act or rationally in his best interest or not.

What I am questioning are her definitions - not my observations. I can't place my observations within the realms of her hypotheses without understanding her definitions and validating them - something which at the present time I can not.

My difference comes in her characterization of a "savage", as it seems to be rather arbitrarily associated with one's social environment rather than on one's ability to reason in the first place. The argument as I read it is that Rand is asserting that environment is necessary for the expression of rationality. That would place rationality as a dependent variable rather than an independent variable: environment becomes a precedent rather than a result of rational thought. The extended implication of such is that rational thought is not independent at all and that individuality as a result of rational thought then becomes a myth. I simply can not consider that to be a logical conclusion. So either her assertion is incorrect, the definitions in use are incorrect, or I am completely misunderstanding her definitions. Thus my inquiry.

Perhaps you need to question your observations and how they relate to reality. Reiterate exactly what you assume is incorrect in her view of man?

1. Absolutely not. You still have not clarifled the definition of "savage."
2. "Non-rational thought" does not equal instinct.
3. I said "only." One does not have to learn that way.
4. You'll have to explain that.

"1. Who said man is "entirely emotion driven"?" That is the claim being made by Rand in her assertion that savages are incapable of rational thought, is it not?

"2. Nor is man driven by instinct." That's quite a claim. There are a huge number of things we do every day that are driven by non-rational thought. Breathing and digestion come to mind. I will agree that man is not wholly driven by instinct, but that was my point in the first place.

I agree with #3 whole-heartedly. We frequently learn by observation or by faith (I know it's a dirty word here, but it's the most appropriate) on others' words like "don't touch the hot stove".

4. You do realize you are using an ad hominem argument while simultaneously lauding the value of reason, right?