Ayn Rand Institution

[xorbie]

There is a Ayn Rand club at my college (U of IL Urbana Champaign) that is part of the Ayn Rand Institution. I joined the club... but don't worry my intent is pretty much just to go there and see if any of them can actually defend this "philosophically perfect" idealogy.

Although there was already a thread on this, I wanted to start a new one so that I could get a little help with the arguments I have developed.

Now this is straight off of the Ayn Rand Institute's website (www.aynrand.org for the masochistic amongst us):

“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).

Perhaps they missed it when quantum physics came along, or when Godel proved his incompleteness theorem, but man is pretty much unable to know all the facts about reality. Moreover, the seperation of "reason" and "feeling" is rather odd here and shows what I feel to be a lack of knowledge about much of the field of biology. If one rejects the supernatural, the mystic, the spiritual as the Objectivists say we must, we are left with nothing but those neurons firing back and forth. These neurons and various biochemicals make up both "thought" and "emotion."

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.”Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).

Well this is obviously total and utter bullshit. So if some retarded kid is born in Africa, does he still have the power to do whatever he wants as seen in Atlas Shrugged. I mean, he can still conquer the global market, even if he is illiterate, homeless and born with AIDS, right? How dare he claim to be a victom?
:rolleyes: :banghead: :mad:

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence. Ayn Rand described her own approach to art as “Romantic Realism”: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.” The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic: the projection of an ideal man: “My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d’Anconia as an end in himself — not as a means to any further end.”

Perhaps it slipped by here that Romanticism is precisely against any didactic form of "this is how man should be." And don't be fooled by her saying "it's not didactic." That's bullshit. So she only projects an ideal man.... you know without maybe hinting that we should be like that. This is so hypocritical, considering that in order for an Objectivist society to function, everyone would have to be this "ideal" person (ideal my ass, but we can leave that for later). Maybe grasping the concept that saying "this is how people ought to be" is basically the definition of being didactic.
:rolleyes:

More to come later, such as the is-ought-will conundrum.

[Keith Russell]

xorbie, the reason I first began to disagree with Objectivism (I am no longer an Objectivist) was The Romantic Manifesto. In her defense, I don't believe that Rand invested [nearly] as much thought into this book as she did in some of her others; the arguments in RM/i] are rather poor, IMO, when compared to the strength of her arguments in other works.

Nonetheless, as an artist, I believe that the following is still quite valid, though I agree that the rest of the paragraph you quoted is highly suspect:
Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. The purpose of art is to concretize the artist’s fundamental view of existence.

(I wouldn't walk around describing Objectivism as 'utter bullshit', though. It explains nothing, and sets an argumentative tone that works against you, IMO.)

The irony is that this definition of art can be used to determine that many works of art [i]are art, even though it is highly doubtful that Rand would have agreed.

As for the rest, beware, Rand often uses words (selfishness, free will, Romanticism, etc.) in ways that the 'average' person (and/or the Dictionary) does not.

Make sure you know what she means, before you attack what she says--the two are often not at all the same.

K

[Keith Russell]

One other thing, you said:
"If one rejects the supernatural, the mystic, the spiritual as the Objectivists say we must, we are left with nothing but those neurons firing back and forth. These neurons and various biochemicals make up both "thought" and "emotion.""

It isn't only Objectivists who reject the supernatural, the spiritual, and the mystic--this forum is run primarily by and for people who reject those very things, most of whom are certainly not Objectivists.

I reject the supernatural, the mystic, and the spiritual as contradictions of metaphysical reality. If something exists, if something is 'true', then it is (by definition) 'real', and thus it is not 'super'natural, nor 'spiritual'.

K

[RED DAVE]

This is an edited version of something I wrote several years ago, and I posted it once before;

Sometime in the late Fifties or early Sixties two similar books were published. One was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and the other was Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure by John Cleland. The former is an immensely long (I think it's longer than War and Peace), silly book by a crack-pot, self-styled philosopher-novelist. The latter is a late-Enlightenment dirty novel more commonly known as Fanny Hill.

Both are stroke books. Both appeal to the feverish sensibilities of 17-year-old males and not very sophisticated ones at that. (Sophisticated guys were reading Crime and Punishment and de Sade's.) Anyone who takes Ayn Rand's book (or the rest of her work) seriously is still engaging in a wank, whether political, philosophical, literary or economic (this last variety is currently quite popular, endless porn on the Internet notwithstanding). Anyone using Cleland's book for what it was obvious written for is at least engaged in an honest act.

For readers much past 17, neither book has much merit. But both are good for some kind of a jerk-off, should you choose to indulge. I confess to have wasted a few hours when I was young and foolish trying to read Atlas Shrugged. Its style places it somewhere below the average woman's magazine fiction of its day such as appeared in Woman's Home Companion. It is vaugely related to some of the lesser works of sci-fi that were floating around back then. I gave it up after about page 25. Fanny Hill was a more constant companion when I was still too uptight to approach the opposite sex.

No one ever took Cleland's book seriously (although any book banned for 200 years can't be all bad). But, incredibly, people did and do take Ayn Rand so. I saw her once at NYU, about 1962. She was a shrill, unfortunately ugly woman (her photographs don't do her justice: she looked like the Wicked Witch of the West's ugly sister) whose ugliness stemmed mainly from the rage that constantly played over her face. She was not well received politically when she dismissed the Civil Rights Movement as a violation of the right of employers to discriminate! Nor was her fervent advocacy of the cause of some GE executives just jailed for price fixing on a massive scale received with much sympathy, nor was her complicity with McCarthyism, which was noted by speakers from the floor. A few months later her boy-toy Nathaniel Branden made an appearance. He was better looking, but his presentation of the philosophy of Objectivism didn't exactly set off fireworks. He too was pretty angry.

Nowadays, Rand's various works are somewhat the rage. As long as self-indulgence, selfishness, racism and other neat stuff is popular, Rand will be read. How can you argue with Alan Greenspan's favorite scribe? Bill Gates probably has a copy of Atlas Shrugged by his bed like Stalin had a copy of Machiavelli.

Me, if I want to go that route, I prefer Fanny Hill.

[Keith Russell]

Red Dave, have you outgrown your taste for unsupported ad hominem, too?

K

[RED DAVE]

When dealing with Ayn Rand, one has to have a strong sense of humor. See the posts on the "Objectivist Ethics" and "Leninist" threads for more serious criticism.

RED DAVE

[Keith Russell]

Dave, you can get around having to let people know when it is safe to take you seriously, by avoiding ad hominem altogether.

Nonetheless, thanks for the heads-up...

K

[xorbie]

Keith, I understand what you are saying. With regards to Rand's double definition, I can understand this. Even though I would argue that using words that have pretty set definitions (such as "Romanticism") with different meanings is almost analogous to lying, I would still agree with you.

The goal of Ayn Rand’s novels is not didactic but artistic

I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be.

Even if Ayn Rand is not being utterly hypocritical about her work and is "merely" utterly misrepresenting Romanticism, the people from the ARI are fools. They clearly say it is not didactic, and put this in the same paragraph as her saying "this is how men ought to be." Or are they using some previously undiscovered meaning of didactic as well?

(dictionary.com says: "Intended to instruct. " ... as in telling people how they ought to be)

Also, I have no problem with people who dispute the supernatural, the mystical, even the concept of a soul. The point is, she/they make(s) no attempt to define consiousness or how it is somehow physically existent, but then go off about a very qualitative difference between "feeling" and "though." I see no qualitative difference, and I fail to see how self-interest can be sepereated from feeling as I believe she defines it, or how rationality at all can be based only on "thought" as I see her defining it.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by xorbie
Perhaps they missed it when quantum physics came along, or when Godel proved his incompleteness theorem, but man is pretty much unable to know all the facts about reality.Not all the facts, but the necessary ones to understand and know and function in reality. The alternative is that man is unable to understand reality which is a futile if not a nihilistic proposition.Moreover, the seperation of "reason" and "feeling" is rather odd here and shows what I feel to be a lack of knowledge about much of the field of biology. If one rejects the supernatural, the mystic, the spiritual as the Objectivists say we must, we are left with nothing but those neurons firing back and forth. These neurons and various biochemicals make up both "thought" and "emotion."Thought and emotion certainly come from the same source - the brain, but thought is the rational, conscious process where as emotions are the impulsive immediate almost like a feeling process. One doesn't have to deny that emotions exists (and this is where I think I part with hardcore objectivists), but rather accept and understand that they exist and affect you.
Well this is obviously total and utter bullshit. So if some retarded kid is born in Africa, does he still have the power to do whatever he wants as seen in Atlas Shrugged. I mean, he can still conquer the global market, even if he is illiterate, homeless and born with AIDS, right? How dare he claim to be a victom? :rolleyes: :banghead: :mad: I think you are missing the point. Man needs to use his tool of survival in order to survive and get ahead which is his reason. A retarded kid, at least one that is clinically retarded cannot survive on his own and will depend on the help of others. Why? Precisely because he lacks the tool of survival which Rand is talking about - reason!Perhaps it slipped by here that Romanticism is precisely against any didactic form of "this is how man should be." And don't be fooled by her saying "it's not didactic." That's bullshit. So she only projects an ideal man.... you know without maybe hinting that we should be like that. This is so hypocritical, considering that in order for an Objectivist society to function, everyone would have to be this "ideal" person (ideal my ass, but we can leave that for later). Maybe grasping the concept that saying "this is how people ought to be" is basically the definition of being didactic.Well thats because the ideal is not subject to opinion, its objective remember? So the illustration of the ideal is merely showing what the objective ought is. In the case of man, man ought to be rational, so the ideal of man is a completely rational one. You can consider that didactic if you don't see any entertainment value in the art, or didn't know beforehand the moral behind the art. I guess that would be subject to opinion then ;)

[nerv111]

Not all the facts, but the necessary ones to understand and know and function in reality. The alternative is that man is unable to understand reality which is a futile if not a nihilistic proposition.I agree, except that understanding is not an absolute. Man can perceive reality though his senses, and can make postulates based on these observations as to the nature and function of reality, but man is limited by these very senses; what we perceive is not reality. We can gain limited knowledge about reality based on observation and experimentation, but such knowledge hardly seems absolute. And if I understand correctly objectivism states that absolute knowledge about reality is indeed possible.

[Keith Russell]

xorbie, if I might be allowed to split another hair or two.

Rand viewed her fiction as art, and she did not view art as educational (in the sense of teaching) but in the sense of showing.

Yes, her characters were intended to depict how she felt people 'ought to be', but I bet she avoided the word 'didactic', since she did not view art as being able to teach.

"A picture is not an argument."
--Ayn Rand.

K

[pmurray]

Originally posted by 99Percent
Not all the facts, but the necessary ones to understand and know and function in reality. The alternative is that man is unable to understand reality which is a futile if not a nihilistic proposition.

Also known as the "wouldn't it be terrible" argument. "It would be terrible if (there was no god/our reason was not sufficient to deal with reality), so therefore it isn't true".

[Nowhere357]

Keith Russell
As for the rest, beware, Rand often uses words (selfishness, free will, Romanticism, etc.) in ways that the 'average' person (and/or the Dictionary) does not.
It isn't only Objectivists who reject the supernatural, the spiritual, and the mystic--this forum is run primarily by and for people who reject those very things, most of whom are certainly not Objectivists.
These two statements seem like a double standard to me, especially given that xorbie gave a definition of sorts for spirituality with "If one rejects the supernatural, the mystic, the spiritual as the Objectivists say we must, we are left with nothing but those neurons firing back and forth. These neurons and various biochemicals make up both "thought" and "emotion.""

There is nothing controversial in claiming that thoughts and emotions are more than the physical neurons and chemicals.

[Keith Russell]

Nowhere said:
"There is nothing controversial in claiming that thoughts and emotions are more than the physical neurons and chemicals."

What do you mean by 'more than'? I don't think that 'thoughts and emotions are more than the physical', for I believe that everything that exists, whatever else it might also be, is--ultimately--physical.

If you disagree, please explain why.

K

[xorbie]

Well I certainly don't think there is anything contraversial about it, but ask a Randist.

There isn't that much of a middle ground here. Either they think consiousness (which Rand specifically talks about) is part of the material world or not. Accepting the former would mean that all that is really going on is biochemistry, and accepting the latter would, IMO at any rate, be a form of supernatural, mystical. How can you say "this non-physical, immaterial entity exists but not this other one"? It seems hypocritical.

On another note, Rand also holds that "that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom." Perhaps I am totally missing something, but what exactly is capitalism based on if we have no freedomg but that to think. Is thinking supposed to inevitably lead to "I want money"? This seems to be a rather dismal look at reality and the epitome of unreason....

There there is the is-ought-will problem. The starts out by sayng that "Man is a rational" and goes effortlessly to "Man ought to act rationally" and "Man will act rationally." After all, in order for an Objectivist society to function everyone needs to act rationally. Otherwise, something like Enron will happen. Of course, an Objectivisit would still need to prove that screwing over an entire company and running away with a couple hundred million dollars is irrational in the context of laissez faire capitalism.

Also, I believe that the Nash Equilibrium poses a serious, and unadressed problem to Objectivism and specifically laissez faire capitalism.

[Frotiw]

:)

I just checked that homepage. WOW. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before (just began my 3rd you as philosophy student), this is a religion not philosophy, i'd note. Ok to be fair I don't bother to read it all but my personal preliminary judgement is that Ayn Rand seems very eager to fill the gap for anyone feeling uneasy with unaswered question (hence it's just like any other religion). The entire outset reminds me so much of scientology.

I really hope this will not contaminate the puplic opinion on philosophy.

I almost wish that there where a campus club or something similar here where I study then I could start bashing them whenever I get bored bashing the cristian fundys.

Amazing crapola.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
What do you mean by 'more than'? I don't think that 'thoughts and emotions are more than the physical', for I believe that everything that exists, whatever else it might also be, is--ultimately--physical.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Because I suspect our difference is semantical, I will instead give you a task:

Please put love or pain in a bottle or on a microscope slide.

Btw I have never read Ann Rand and by this point I have no intention of ever doing so. :)

[99Percent]

Originally posted by nerv111
I agree, except that understanding is not an absolute. Man can perceive reality though his senses, and can make postulates based on these observations as to the nature and function of reality, but man is limited by these very senses; what we perceive is not reality.Incorrect. What we perceive is indeed reality. We cannot perceive reality in completeness, but what we know about reality is understandable and makes sense. Reality, and therefore truth has logical consistency, its persistent, and we can know it.We can gain limited knowledge about reality based on observation and experimentation, but such knowledge hardly seems absolute.Objectivists don't pretend to know absolutely (that is omniscience and therefore contradictory) but that the truth we perceive in the human realm is indeed absolutely true. And if I understand correctly objectivism states that absolute knowledge about reality is indeed possible. Not absolute knowlege, no, but absolute truth in the human realm yes. We cannot determine the state of quantum particles, or know now whether the Andromeda galaxy is still there, but that is not the realm of our human interaction and perception of reality.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by pmurray
Also known as the "wouldn't it be terrible" argument. "It would be terrible if (there was no god/our reason was not sufficient to deal with reality), so therefore it isn't true". Not really. If you don't know if you exist or not, whats the point of even discussing anything (and this is what I mean by nihilistic). You must first declare that things exist, yourself included. It's fundamental!

That it would be "terrible" if god didn't exist is a moral conundrum. We aren't discussing morality (yet) we are discussing epistemology.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by Frotiw
:)

I just checked that homepage. WOW. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before (just began my 3rd you as philosophy student), this is a religion not philosophy, i'd note. Ok to be fair I don't bother to read it all but my personal preliminary judgement is that Ayn Rand seems very eager to fill the gap for anyone feeling uneasy with unaswered question (hence it's just like any other religion). The entire outset reminds me so much of scientology.

I really hope this will not contaminate the puplic opinion on philosophy.

I almost wish that there where a campus club or something similar here where I study then I could start bashing them whenever I get bored bashing the cristian fundys.

Amazing crapola. Yeah, your response typifies what we neo objectivists are repulsed by the cultish approach of Ayn Rand devotees. Try this other site:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/index.asp

[Nowhere357]

xorbie
Accepting the former would mean that all that is really going on is biochemistry, and accepting the latter would, IMO at any rate, be a form of supernatural, mystical. How can you say "this non-physical, immaterial entity exists but not this other one"? It seems hypocritical.
It's interesting to me that if we remove our personal experience of our own minds from the equation, there would be no reason at all to assume such things as minds exist.

On another note, Rand also holds that "that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom."
Free will is just will, the ability of a mind to make decisions. This includes our ability to resist urges or impulses.

There there is the is-ought-will problem.
From your description, she hasn't a clue. Neither do I, really, except that we 'ought' to do right and resist wrong.

Also, I believe that the Nash Equilibrium poses a serious, and unadressed problem to Objectivism and specifically laissez faire capitalism.
It seems to me that the game-theory concept described by the Nash Equilibrium requires presumptions that don't of necessity apply to capitalism, but I'm not sure. Does the "serious unaddressed problem" exist only if we make those assumptions? What is the problem in your view?

[Nowhere357]

99Percent
What we perceive is indeed reality. We cannot perceive reality in completeness, but what we know about reality is understandable and makes sense. Reality, and therefore truth has logical consistency, its persistent, and we can know it.
I agree with this, except the first statement. We perceive our perceptions of reality, not reality itself. Our perceptions are based on or derived from reality, but are not reality itself. When we see a tree, the tree is not in our minds, only our perception of it. Perceptions are subject to illusion.

Objectivists don't pretend to know absolutely (that is omniscience and therefore contradictory) but that the truth we perceive in the human realm is indeed absolutely true.
Given my view above, how can we know that the truth we perceive is indeed absolutely true?


Btw to make it through this thread so far, I've needed half a dozen dictionary definitions and a google search. I am so out of my comfort zone. God I love this place!

[Keith Russell]

Nowhere, I think you're right, our differences are semantic in nature.

I view love as an evaluation; but one that--like all evaluations--has its origin in the physical biological structures that give rise to consciousness.

Pain is not an evaluation, but I believe that it, too, arises from the same source.

K

[Keith Russell]

Frotiw said:
I just checked that homepage. WOW. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before (just began my 3rd you as philosophy student), this is a religion not philosophy, i'd note. Ok to be fair I don't bother to read it all but my personal preliminary judgement is that Ayn Rand seems very eager to fill the gap for anyone feeling uneasy with unaswered question (hence it's just like any other religion). The entire outset reminds me so much of scientology.

I really hope this will not contaminate the puplic opinion on philosophy.

I almost wish that there where a campus club or something similar here where I study then I could start bashing them whenever I get bored bashing the cristian fundys.

Amazing crapola.

This is exactly the sort of antagonistic, unsupported criticism that prevents so many Objectivists from seeing the very real flaws in some of Rand's ideas.

As a former Objectivist, I've heard this kind of criticism for years-- but I've rarely heard serious, in-depth explanations as to why Rand's ideas are so often typified as 'philosophy-lite'.

Frotiw: 'Bashing' folks for their ideas, rather than attacking the ideas themselves, is considered ad hominem: fallacious.

Wouldn't it be better for people who truly understand philosophy (like philosophy majors, for example) to use their knowledge to help folks realize their philosophical errors, and thus abandon their bad ideas, rather than simply 'bashing' people?

K

[xorbie]

Well I think I have tried, Kieth.

And with regards to the Nash Equilibrium, it can be applied to just about any situation in which people desire certain state of affairs more than other state of affairs. It is actually used frequently by companies, which is why he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for it (they don't give those out for free you know).

The problem it poses is that rationally speaking, laissez faire capitalism is not the best method. Also, that the most rational action to take would be not to strive for that which you want the most, but for whatever position in the Nash Equilibrium is yours. If everyone cooperated, it would have a 100% success rate, and everyone would be relatively happy, whereas in competition you might lose.

Therefore, her ideas about rationally seeking your self interest and the fundamental right being to take any action necessary to acheive this are contradictory. Statistically speaking, you will always be better off if everyone gets together and does everything the Nash way.

Still, I understand that this somewhat of a fringe argument. The is-ought-will challenge is, as far as I know, still the most successful attack on her ideas (not all objectivism per se).

[nerv111]

Incorrect. What we perceive is indeed reality. We cannot perceive reality in completeness, but what we know about reality is understandable and makes sense. Reality, and therefore truth has logical consistency, its persistent, and we can know it.The image we interpret as a chair is not the same as the actual real object which this image has been created from. Furthermore our perception can be fooled, take simple magic tricks, in such a case our perception does not match reality, thus our perceptions do not always correlate with reality, and therefore cannot be reality.

Objectivists don't pretend to know absolutely (that is omniscience and therefore contradictory) but that the truth we perceive in the human realm is indeed absolutely true. Could you elaborate on that? I am uncertain as to what you mean.

Not absolute knowlege, no, but absolute truth in the human realm yes. We cannot determine the state of quantum particles, or know now whether the Andromeda galaxy is still there, but that is not the realm of our human interaction and perception of reality.What then does ‘absolute truth in the human realm’ mean? And how can this truth be absolute given the fact that our perceptions can be deceived?

[99Percent]

Originally posted by nerv111
The image we interpret as a chair is not the same as the actual real object which this image has been created from. Furthermore our perception can be fooled, take simple magic tricks, in such a case our perception does not match reality, thus our perceptions do not always correlate with reality, and therefore cannot be reality.That is why I said that reality has a persistent logical quality to it. Your senses might be fooled once or even twice but not all the time. Besides your different senses match and corrolate and make sense. Your eyes might be deceiving you but your touch can make sense of what your eyes are seeing. Your aggregate memory is able to function because your new experiences build logically upon previous ones. If reality didn't have that persistent quality, it would not be reality. That is why dreams are easily forgotten because they don't match logically, ie, they don't make sense, with your live experiences. in fact its how human memory works, it needs constant refresh of perceptions that logically match what is already stored in the brain, or else it is gradually forgotten. Objectivists don't pretend to know absolutely (that is omniscience and therefore contradictory) but that the truth we perceive in the human realm is indeed absolutely true.Could you elaborate on that? I am uncertain as to what you mean.I mean that the reality we can agree on the reality that we both experience as being absolutely true in the relative human realm.
What then does ‘absolute truth in the human realm’ mean? And how can this truth be absolute given the fact that our perceptions can be deceived?Precisely because reality has a logical and persistent quality to it we can both agree and communicate this reality in a logical and persistent way. In other words, reality makes sense to both you and me.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by xorbie
[B]Well I think I have tried, Kieth.

And with regards to the Nash Equilibrium, it can be applied to just about any situation in which people desire certain state of affairs more than other state of affairs. It is actually used frequently by companies, which is why he won the Nobel Prize in Economics for it (they don't give those out for free you know).

The problem it poses is that rationally speaking, laissez faire capitalism is not the best method. Also, that the most rational action to take would be not to strive for that which you want the most, but for whatever position in the Nash Equilibrium is yours. If everyone cooperated, it would have a 100% success rate, and everyone would be relatively happy, whereas in competition you might lose.

Therefore, her ideas about rationally seeking your self interest and the fundamental right being to take any action necessary to acheive this are contradictory. Statistically speaking, you will always be better off if everyone gets together and does everything the Nash way. [ I haven't dwelved deeply into the Nash Equlibrium, so correct me if I am wrong. AFAIK the Nash Equilibrium deals with zero sum situations. However capitalism assumes the creation of wealth which is the opposite of zero sum games.

For a very simple example: We have three people Joe with 12 apples, John with 12 Oranges and Alice with 12 Strawberries. For Joe, both oranges and strawberries are more valuable than apples (because he already has apples), likewise with the John and Alice each respectively. Joe and Alice each trade 6 of their respective fruits. Now Joe and Alive value their respective cache of fruits more than before. Why? Because John will have to trade more of his oranges in order to gain some strawberries from Alice or Joe, six oranges for 3 strawberries. But once all the trades are done, they will all benefit because they will value more what they have. The resources have been allocated and that is why they are automatically more valuable!

Another problem I see with the Nash Equilibrium is that it deals with static variables. Large economies have everthing except static variables. Computing a Nash equilibria in an evolving ever changing economy would be practically impossible.

Yet another thing the Nash Equilibrium doesn't deal is with rational ignorance. Sometimes its just better to get an economic transaction done, than simply waiting forever to find out all the information necessary to know what is best.

[xorbie]

Yet another thing the Nash Equilibrium doesn't deal is with rational ignorance. Sometimes its just better to get an economic transaction done, than simply waiting forever to find out all the information necessary to know what is best.

Of course. My point was that using solely reason and rational will not lead to the best scenario, precesily because it takes so long to figure everything out. The problem is that the Randists don't (AFAIK) put out any concrete definition of "rational" that I think corresponds with the rest of their beliefs. Still, it is all a moot point unless the "is-ought-will" problem is successfully overcome.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by xorbie
Of course. My point was that using solely reason and rational will not lead to the best scenario, precesily because it takes so long to figure everything out.I think you are confusing logic with reason here. You can also be rational about how long to figure things out so that doesn't deny reason as a valid way to proceed. You state that reason and rationalism will not lead to the best scenario. What are the alternatives you are thinking about? The problem is that the Randists don't (AFAIK) put out any concrete definition of "rational" that I think corresponds with the rest of their beliefs. Agreed. Defining reason is a deep philosophical conundrum.Still, it is all a moot point unless the "is-ought-will" problem is successfully overcome. I think I know what you are getting at. Can you lay out the problem? I am willing to give it a try to tackle it.

[xorbie]

I think you are confusing logic with reason here. You can also be rational about how long to figure things out so that doesn't deny reason as a valid way to proceed. You state that reason and rationalism will not lead to the best scenario. What are the alternatives you are thinking about?

No, I am just using reason and rational as I see Randists defining it. And I don't think how they define it would lead to the best decision always. Especially the hardcore ones who reject all emotion. :boohoo:

I think I know what you are getting at. Can you lay out the problem? I am willing to give it a try to tackle it.

Well you deserve your chance. :cool:

Basically, Rand states that man is a rational argument. Of course there is a general failure to define what rational means, or to prove that man is in fact rational. However, it is a huge leap to say that if "man is a rational animal" then "man ought to behave rationally." It seems to me that this is an appeal to nature, and just because something is in our nature does not mean we must do it.

I personally feel that the stronger attack is the ought-will problem. Basically, Rand said that we should adopt laisez-faire capitalism. Such a society would be perfect and there would be no corruption. Why? Because a CEO can only make money if people think he is trustworthy and reports good numbers. Why? Because the media would not want to coerce people by reporting incorrect informtion or leaving out certain news. But wait a minute, that happens all the time....

I think the mistake she makes is the same as the communists do:

Rand: "Man is rational. Man ought to behave rationally. Capitalism uses the fact that man is rational and harnesses it to create a perfect society in which there is no war (:confused: ), and in which everyone is just."

Communist: "Man is compassionate. Man ought always to be compassionate and care about the well being of others. Communism harnesses this compassion and creates a society in which everyone is equal and it is perfectly just."

One will fail, the other will too.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by xorbie
Basically, Rand states that man is a rational argument. Of course there is a general failure to define what rational means, or to prove that man is in fact rational. However, it is a huge leap to say that if "man is a rational animal" then "man ought to behave rationally." It seems to me that this is an appeal to nature, and just because something is in our nature does not mean we must do it.The reason we say that man is a rational animal, is because we can see that rationality is our distinguishing feature, our essence if you will. Its what separates us from all other animals conceptually. When I point my finger and declare such an object is a bicycle you can conceptually grasp the significance of my statement because you know what a bicycle ought to do, namely transport you with two wheels. Likewise when I point a finger to an animal and declare he is a man (or woman) I am implicitely conveying the idea that such a person is rational, and you can have the necessary expectations regarding the interaction with such an animal, namely that he can communicate, reason, ie, be rational.I personally feel that the stronger attack is the ought-will problem. Basically, Rand said that we should adopt laisez-faire capitalism. Such a society would be perfect and there would be no corruption.No. You are viewing it the wrong way. You are seeing the possible consequences of such a system. Thats consequentialism. Rand adopts the laisez-faire capitalism as the right moral political and economical system based on principles derived through reason. That she speculated on the consequences of its opposite, collectivism, like in Atlas Shrugged she did so based on her own experiences with communist Rusia.Why? Because a CEO can only make money if people think he is trustworthy and reports good numbers. Why? Because the media would not want to coerce people by reporting incorrect informtion or leaving out certain news. But wait a minute, that happens all the time....We don't deny that (some) people act irrationally and become criminals, that is why we believe in a necessary government.I think the mistake she makes is the same as the communists do:

Rand: "Man is rational. Man ought to behave rationally. Capitalism uses the fact that man is rational and harnesses it to create a perfect society in which there is no war (:confused: ), and in which everyone is just."

Communist: "Man is compassionate. Man ought always to be compassionate and care about the well being of others. Communism harnesses this compassion and creates a society in which everyone is equal and it is perfectly just."Well all philosophies have a basic view on what the nature of man is. With this idea on the nature of man it follows naturally to a political system based precisely on what is the nature of man. Its up to us to reason out what this nature really is. We objectivist feel that the nature of man is that he is rational (its our distinguishing characteristic) so it follows that the ideal political/economical system is laissez faire capitalism. Although man can be compassionate, we discard it as it being its fundamental nature because it means that man woud really be a collectivized being, which is false. We are sovereign individual beings, not like ants or bees. Compassion is not man's essence - its distinguishing characteristic.One will fail, the other will too.Which makes me curious. What is your idea on the nature of man? Everyone has one.

[xorbie]

Which makes me curious. What is your idea on the nature of man? Everyone has one.

Interesting question, I must say. First of all, I will say I certainly don't think that being rational is man's distinguishing feature. It is believed by many scientists that gorillas can distinguish between concept and and representation, that is to say they know that a picture of an orange represents an actual orange, not just that if they press a random button they will get an orange.

Also, you too have yet to define "rational."

My conception of the nature of man is somewhat similiar to existentialism. Man's nature is almost the lack of a nature, the lack of predictability. People have collectively done everything from the most vile and despicable to the most noble and dignified. A lot of it was simply not rational. Is there an underlying theme? The lack of any underlying principle to describe mankind seems to be the only unifying factor. Somewhat akin to existentialism in that respect, I suppose.

You still did not adress the is-ought. Assuming man's nature is that he is rational, why then should he act rationally at all times? Why is it in his best interest?

Also, consequences matter. You see even if you have a government to punish people who have acted irrationally and destroyed the whole system, you have still have thousands of people without jobs. Does the fact that this society is moral in any way console thousands of families that need to sell cars, houses and who knows what else just to put food on the table? I hardly think so. Until you can prove to me that man will always behave rationally, I refuse to my trust in a system that says "man will behave rationally."

[student738]

"Basically, Rand states that man is a rational argument. Of course there is a general failure to define what rational means, or to prove that man is in fact rational. However, it is a huge leap to say that if "man is a rational animal" then "man ought to behave rationally." It seems to me that this is an appeal to nature, and just because something is in our nature does not mean we must do it."

Suppose that the Objectivist shifts the problem. The Objectivist may claim, "It is the case that all properly functioning, developed human beings strive to behave rationally." That is, and perhaps this is the intention, the Objectivist may make a purely descriptive, rather than prescriptive claim. This is the surest way to avoid the "naturalistic fallacy".

And by "properly functioning, developed", the Objectivist may intend nothing more than, "ordinary", "someone like you and I", "ordinarily enabled", or "not seriously disabled". Regardless, for most purposes of the Objectivist, I think that such a definition need not pose any significant problems. I am confident that there is widespread agreement among us on the properties of at least some reasonable subset of "properly functioning, developed human beings", or perhaps of those which are not.

Perhaps an Objectivist here can offer a substitute for "properly functioning, developed", which more adequately, or more specifically describes his or her position.

And again, as I suggested in the other Objectivist thread, I suspect we can reach significant agreement upon what constitutes at least some significant subset of "rational behavior". Perhaps we can not reach agreement sufficient to make many Objectivist claims plausible, but none the less, I believe we can reach significant agreement.

And for the record, I have never read Rand, am not an Objectivist, and am not politically a Libertarian.

[student738]

[snip]

Oops, double post. Sorry.

[xorbie]

Interesting. If I read you right, you are saying that instead of saying that "man is a rational animal" is descriptive, "people ought to behave rationally" is descriptive. If this is the case though, what is the point of even saying it? And I highly doubt this is the case in any regards, because "rational" is not really used in this sense, but closer to the every day use - essentially it means "using reason." Also, it still does not solve the "ought-will." In order for economic libertarians to be able to justify their position, they would need to show that people will in fact behave rationally, which I fear they will not, at least not in ways that Randists might consider rational.

[RED DAVE]

99Percent, how strange to meet you here. (I owe you a posting about A=A, which I chivied you about.)

Well all philosophies have a basic view on what the nature of man is. With this idea on the nature of man it follows naturally to a political system based precisely on what is the nature of man. Its up to us to reason out what this nature really is. We objectivist feel that the nature of man is that he is rational (its our distinguishing characteristic) so it follows that the ideal political/economical system is laissez faire capitalism. Although man can be compassionate, we discard it as it being its fundamental nature because it means that man woud really be a collectivized being, which is false. We are sovereign individual beings, not like ants or bees. Compassion is not man's essence - its distinguishing characteristic.

1. Well all philosophies have a basic view on what the nature of man is.

Any view of "the nature of man" needs to take into account all of human history because this is the true expression of the nature of man. The idea that man has a simply defined, fixed nature is belied by history. Everything that people have ever done, from the most wonderful acts of love, kindness cand creativity to the most hideous acts of murder and destruction are part of "human nature."

2.With this idea on the nature of man it follows naturally to a political system based precisely on what is the nature of man.

Yes, but people's entire nature has to be taken into account.

3. Its up to us to reason out what this nature really is. We objectivist feel that the nature of man is that he is rational (its our distinguishing characteristic) . . .

Whoa! What a leap. It's interesting that you use the word "feel" as your measure of truth, yet you say the nature of man is rational. In essence, you "feel" man is rational? That's not's particularly act. And, even if were so, you still have to (a) define "rational," and (b) explain how we are capable of violating our "distinguishing characteristic."

4. . . . so it follows that the ideal political/economical system is laissez faire capitalism.

Whoa, again. How is liassez-faire capitalism, at the core of which is something called the "invisible hand" (the sum total of all economic calculations, rational, irrational, smart, stupid, free, manipulated, coerced, etc.), rational? That's like saying that the true height of a human being is the average height because that's an expression (the average) of all human heights, without taking into account all the forces that act on hieght, such as age, inheritance, nutrition, etc.

5. Although man can be compassionate, we discard it as it being its fundamental nature because it means that man woud really be a collectivized being, which is false.

Okay, now we come down to the true error. ". . . we discard [compassion] as it being [mankind's] nature because [compassion] means mean that man would really be collectivized being, which is false."

That is a totally circular argument. Mankind can be compassionate, but that's disregarded because another category, "collectivized being," has been slipped in. There is no discussion at all of this category. It is merely rejected out of hand, and, with, the tens of thousands of years of the collective life of mankind, in which we have always lived together (and, for the 70,000 or so, as primitive, cooperating, hunter-gatherers).

6. We are sovereign individual beings, not like ants or bees. Compassion is not man's essence - its distinguishing characteristic.

Nice Randian line, but bullshit and, a totally uncalled-for conclusion. How are we sovreign, except in our fantasies? Our lives, with others, are as collective as can be. Try being an individual, along. Go out into some wilderness somewhere, alone, with primitive tools and weapons, and starve, freeze, roast, or die of disease. Do this with others, in other words, add the resources to live in some safety, and you start . . . a tribe!

It has nothing to do with ants or bees, which lack compassion, the ability to calculate rationally or any other form of consciousness. It has to do with collective (gasp) work (and all its attendant rationality), interdependence, love and, yes, compassion.

RED DAVE

[student738]

"If I read you right, you are saying that instead of saying that "man is a rational animal" is descriptive, "people ought to behave rationally" is descriptive."
No, not quite, and perhaps I am not clear due to my (for the most part) complete ignorance as regards any Objectivist writings.

I am suggesting that the Objectivist might not, or that a "revised Objectivist position" may not be prescriptive at all, but rather purely descriptive, i.e. make no claim of "ought" at all.

The claim would be, as I expounded upon above, "A properly functioning, developed human being strives to behave rationally."

A restating of this might be, "It is in part, in virtue of your striving to behave rationally that you are a properly functioning, developed human being."
(edit: wait, I'm not sure that this restating is appropriate. "properly functioning" is simply going to be unacceptable without additional clarification; I will see what I can do.)

It is not that you "ought" to do so, but rather that so far as you do not, you are not a properly functioning, developed human being.

That said with the numerous qualifications I made previously to, "properly functioning". Which is why I suggested that an Objectivist produce a substitute for "properly functioning", as we all know that the term is quite controversial.

[student738]

"Also, it still does not solve the "ought-will." In order for economic libertarians to be able to justify their position, they would need to show that people will in fact behave rationally, which I fear they will not, at least not in ways that Randists might consider rational."
I agree that "behaving rationally" is related to "using reason".

I have heard it suggested, "The rational choice is that which has the best reasons." I have also heard it suggested, "The Ethical choice is that which has the best reasons."

Given what I believe would be a fair definition of "rational behavior", I believe I could go at least some ways to defending the position, "Ordinary persons in our Western, post-Enlightenment culture strive to behave rationally." But, I suspect that, as you say, such a definition of rational behavior would be inadequate to support many of the Objectivist claims.

We, of course, do not make choices simply for the sake of making choices. We make choices because we have needs and desires.

My definition of rationality would not, for example, support the "rational self interest" claim. That seems to be rely additionally upon Egoism being true. I do not find egoism particularly convincing.

And so I suppose that is all I have to say to this.

[xorbie]

But if we are saying "To the extent that a person is rational, they are a fully functional, developed person," are you not suggesting that people ought to be rational? And if you are not, then what is it about being fully functional and developed that is so special?
It is a tricky business.

[student738]

Note that with this change, Objectivism becomes an "ethical theory" in the same sense that psychological egoism is. That is to say, it is perhaps not then an ethical theory at all, but rather a psychological theory.

However, if the intent of Objectivism is to support Libertarian economic and political policies (which often seems to be the case), it seems to me that the altered claim, if true, is still adequate to that task.

First we would need to accept a particular definition of "rational". It would then be claimed that most or all ordinary, adult human beings in our society strive, through no fault of their own, to behave rationally. I was wary of using "proper function" specifically to avoid the appearance that I am "sneaking in" an "ought"; I don't believe I am, and will refrain from using the term in the future.

A compatible definition of "rational behavior" might involve just two elements:
1) Making that choice which, given one's preexisting system of beliefs, has the best reasons.
2) Correcting one's system of beliefs so far as one finds two or more beliefs to be inconsistent.

It might be claimed that so far as one does (1) and (2), one behaves rationally.

Various clarifications and limitations of (1) and (2) are needed, but I won't go into them at the moment.

I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that a great many people in our modern society strive after (1) and (2). We seem to hope that we make our choices based upon the best reasons available to us. When made to understand that we believe both A and ~A, we feel compelled to either find evidence indicating that this conclusion is not true, or evidence supporting one claim over the other so as to retain only the more supported claim.

And so, if it is the case that most or all ordinary, adult human beings in our society strive to behave rationally (as per above), and if it is the case that psychological egoism is true, then most or all ordinary, adult human beings in our society strive to act according to "rational self-interest", or at least on some principle which is quite similar.

The role of psychological egoism here is to identify in the individual what are and are not the best reasons.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
1. Well all philosophies have a basic view on what the nature of man is.

Any view of "the nature of man" needs to take into account all of human history because this is the true expression of the nature of man. The idea that man has a simply defined, fixed nature is belied by history. Everything that people have ever done, from the most wonderful acts of love, kindness cand creativity to the most hideous acts of murder and destruction are part of "human nature."This is empiricism, which is a philosophy in itself. However to judge the nature of man on purely historical facts is a bankrupt proposition because it locks man in its past, with no posibility of progress - this is how man was and this is how he will always be.2.With this idea on the nature of man it follows naturally to a political system based precisely on what is the nature of man.

Yes, but people's entire nature has to be taken into account.No. Only its distinguishing essential characteristic.3. Its up to us to reason out what this nature really is. We objectivist feel that the nature of man is that he is rational (its our distinguishing characteristic) . . .

Whoa! What a leap. It's interesting that you use the word "feel" as your measure of truth, yet you say the nature of man is rational. In essence, you "feel" man is rational? That's not's particularly act. And, even if were so, you still have to (a) define "rational," and (b) explain how we are capable of violating our "distinguishing characteristic."Come on Red Dave, don't be dishonestly nitpicking here. I used "feel" after saying "reasoned", ie, in its rational context. Discussing what "rational" is, is daunting but not impossible, and why we are capable of violating or distinguishing characteristic is precisely why we are moral beings.4. . . . so it follows that the ideal political/economical system is laissez faire capitalism.

Whoa, again. How is liassez-faire capitalism, at the core of which is something called the "invisible hand" (the sum total of all economic calculations, rational, irrational, smart, stupid, free, manipulated, coerced, etc.), rational? That's like saying that the true height of a human being is the average height because that's an expression (the average) of all human heights, without taking into account all the forces that act on hieght, such as age, inheritance, nutrition, etc.Wrong analogy, because height is not our distinguishing characteristic, our essence. Reason is.5. Although man can be compassionate, we discard it as it being its fundamental nature because it means that man woud really be a collectivized being, which is false.

Okay, now we come down to the true error. ". . . we discard [compassion] as it being [mankind's] nature because [compassion] means mean that man would really be collectivized being, which is false."

That is a totally circular argument. Mankind can be compassionate, but that's disregarded because another category, "collectivized being," has been slipped in. There is no discussion at all of this category. It is merely rejected out of hand, and, with, the tens of thousands of years of the collective life of mankind, in which we have always lived together (and, for the 70,000 or so, as primitive, cooperating, hunter-gatherers).It is not rejected out of hand. I repeat it here: We can be compassionate, but it is not our essential feature. We are by nature self-interested beings. We are driven by egoism, whether it is rational or psychological. It is an unescapable fact. To propose that we are not indeed like that by nature is to say that ultimately man is essentially a collectivized being, a mindless drone, which is clearly false. You said so yourself we lived as cooperating hunters-gatherers, trading value for value consciously and rationally.
6. We are sovereign individual beings, not like ants or bees. Compassion is not man's essence - its distinguishing characteristic.

Nice Randian line, but bullshit and, a totally uncalled-for conclusion. How are we sovreign, except in our fantasies? Our lives, with others, are as collective as can be. Try being an individual, along. Go out into some wilderness somewhere, alone, with primitive tools and weapons, and starve, freeze, roast, or die of disease. Do this with others, in other words, add the resources to live in some safety, and you start . . . a tribe!

It has nothing to do with ants or bees, which lack compassion, the ability to calculate rationally or any other form of consciousness. It has to do with collective (gasp) work (and all its attendant rationality), interdependence, love and, yes, compassion. Again, I am not denying compassion exists, but it comes from our own individual choice. Even in a tribe we trade value for value as individuals, we see our own convenience. We don't mindlessly work as a collective, like ants or bees.

[Keith Russell]

Compassion has nothing to do with collectivism; one can be compassionate for purely selfish reasons.

The human ability to be compassionate should not rejected 'out-of-hand'; it is certainly one aspect of human nature.

But, any claim that the human capacity for compassion makes humans 'collective' beings, should be rejected...

K

[RED DAVE]

Compassion is, indeed, a choice. I can choose to be a selfish, egotistic bastard, identify with others of my kind and fuck everyone else.

Let me pose a related issue: child raising.

Child raising has nothing to do with egotism, selfishness, rtational calculation, etc. It is a major activity of mankind. It is also entirely absent from the writings of Rand. (The references to it in "Anthem" are grim, suggesting that Rand, herself, had a shitty childhood.)

Why, according to Objectivist, Libertarian or Conservative theory would anyone want to be raise children? You just can't make money off them these days since those pesky leftists avbolished child labor and cannibalism went out of style.

RED DAVE

[Keith Russell]

Dave, my wife and I have chosen not to have children.

Does that, IYO, make us bad people?

K

[RED DAVE]

From Keith Russell:

Dave, my wife and I have chosen not to have children.

Does that, IYO, make us bad people?

No, it just strikes me that this critical category of human life is absent from Objectivist philosophy. And, since this category is generally considered to involve personal, unremunerated sacrifice, I just wonder if it points to a major flaw in Objectivist principles.

RED DAVE

[thefugitivesaint]

99 Percent:
We are by nature self-interested beings. We are driven by egoism, whether it is rational or psychological. It is an unescapable fact. To propose that we are not indeed like that by nature is to say that ultimately man is essentially a collectivized being, a mindless drone, which is clearly false.

Being "self-interested beings", in no way, prioritizes selfishness over cooperation.

We learn most of what we know about survival through the mediation of the specific culture(s) we are raised within. We meet the requirements of obtaining our fundamental needs by following the designs we were taught. The process of "individualization", where one differentiates themselves from other people is prolonged (and some would claim the process never really ends). Individuation, as the development of personal identity, is neither the contrary nor the contradictory of social indentification, it is social identification (Independence is a positive and mature adaptation based on secure grasp of the self in relation to other poeple).

Your thoughts do not just pop into your head out of nowhere; they pop into your head out of a cultural background, and however much you might move beyond this background, you can never simply escape it altogether, and you could never have developed thoughts in the first place without it.

It is fine for us to agree that we are different from each other, provided, we do not ignore the fact that we agreed to differ. We did not differ to agree, to create society by deliberate contract between originally independent parties.

We are interdependent by nature. Saying this does not preclude "selfish" interests nor does it over-emphasize our cooperative aspect it simply names us as we are. We are not self-contained monads producing no effect on each other save our reflections. We are both acted upon, changed for good or ill, by other people in a field of reciprocal influence and interaction (and not all interactions are positive nor desired i.e. crime). To deny this is to deny an equally fundamental part of our shared nature.

What i think Red Dave (and myself) deny is the primacy of "selfishness" and the emphasis it has acquired in evolutionary biology (as it is popularized for the "masses"). This emphasis has underscored our dependent, cooperative factors and it possess an ideological connection to socio-political justifications for specific actions taken by the so-called "ruling classes." To remind or re-state that we are not wholly selfish is not to religate human beings into a mythical "collectivized being" nor into a "mindless drone" nor does it devalue "egoism." It simply puts a great part of ourselves back into the picture where it has been continually absent.

Life is social and people are born to be social, that is, co-operative, an interdepedent part of a whole, interacting part of a community. It is through social circumstances that words like "individual" and concepts like "individualism" are defined and given meaning. Through families, friends, schools, jobs, and in leisure activities, our involvement in society shapes our personality it does not hinder it.

As to "Reason" and its emphasis in Objectivist "philosophy", it is defined in a far to rarified manner that does not reflect the actual process of "reasoning" that we as a species conducts. The Objectivist take on "Reason" is idealized and not applicable to reality (it correlation, if there is one at all, is rather loss and tentative). But, this is besides the point of my post so i'll let that discussion rest.
-theSaint

[RED DAVE]

From 99Percent:

We are by nature self-interested beings. We are driven by egoism, whether it is rational or psychological. It is an unescapable fact. To propose that we are not indeed like that by nature is to say that ultimately man is essentially a collectivized being, a mindless drone, which is clearly false.

If we are "by nature" self-interested, how do you account for actions against self-interest. A person cannot act against his nature. That's what "nature" means.

As to egoism, are you saying that every human being in every period in human history is egoistic? Every one? If this is not true, then your proposition fails.

Can't you figure out some kind of alternative between the tyrant and the beehive? Plato couldn't, but maybe we can do better.

RED DAVE

[contracycle]

2.With this idea on the nature of man it follows naturally to a political system based precisely on what is the nature of man.

Yes, but people's entire nature has to be taken into account.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Only its distinguishing essential characteristic.

Pure Idealism. Having abstracted an alleged (but challengeable) distinguishing characteristic, the "objectivists" abandon all objectivity and assert that this and only this aspect of humanity should be recognised.

[RED DAVE]

From contracycle:

Pure Idealism. Having abstracted an alleged (but challengeable) distinguishing characteristic, the "objectivists" abandon all objectivity and assert that this and only this aspect of humanity should be recognised.

Not to mention bad psychology, history, anthropology, etc.

RED DAVE

[Keith Russell]

I don't believe Rand ever stated that rationality was our essential nature, just that the capacity for reason is the characteristic that distinguishes human beings from all other animals.

(I remain unconvinced that she (or Aristotle, for that matter) were correct in this regard...)

K

[99Percent]

Originally posted by thefugitivesaint
99 Percent:


Being "self-interested beings", in no way, prioritizes selfishness over cooperation. That is why Rand emphasizes rational self-interest. And remember, to cooperate underlies a willingness to do so. It cannot be forced.

[99Percent]

Originally posted by RED DAVE
From 99Percent:

If we are "by nature" self-interested, how do you account for actions against self-interest. A person cannot act against his nature. That's what "nature" means.Not necessarily. We are volitional beings and therefore we can choose to act against our nature. My nature might be to be 50 pounds heavier if I ate all I wanted, but instead I consciously decide not to.As to egoism, are you saying that every human being in every period in human history is egoistic? Every one? If this is not true, then your proposition fails.We are individually sovereign beings. We each individually can only feel and think and act by our own. Therefore every single human in history has been egoistic. Whether this egoism is rational or not, or psychological or not is another question.
Can't you figure out some kind of alternative between the tyrant and the beehive? Plato couldn't, but maybe we can do better. Errr, capitalism?

[contracycle]

Originally posted by 99Percent
Not necessarily. We are volitional beings and therefore we can choose to act against our nature. My nature might be to be 50 pounds heavier if I ate all I wanted, but instead I consciously decide not to.

Then it is not your "nature" to eat that much. 'Nature' implies fixed and inalterable, unchallangeable. If it is as flexible as your eating habits, then it is not your nature, merely one of a range of behaviours and consequences.


We are individually sovereign beings. We each individually can only feel and think and act by our own. Therefore every single human in history has been egoistic. Whether this egoism is rational or not, or psychological or not is another question. Errr, capitalism? [/B]

Problem here is: are people individually soverign? And would that not be an odd behaviour in a pack predator?

People are not soveriegn, they are bound by the society constructed over historical periods, restricted by social convention, and limited by the raw force of others. This "sovereignty" does not exist.

Can't you figure out some kind of alternative between the tyrant and the beehive? Plato couldn't, but maybe we can do better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Errr, capitalism?

No, that merely duplicates the Tyrant.

[RED DAVE]

From 99Percent:We are individually sovereign beings. We each individually can only feel and think and act by our own. Therefore every single human in history has been egoistic. Whether this egoism is rational or not, or psychological or not is another question.

1. We are individually sovereign beings.

Where do you get this? It is nothing more than an abstraction imposed on the history of mankind. Look at our history and realize that the concept of the individual, probably, did not exist until the Greeks. And that was after 100,00+ years of human existence.

2. We each individually can only feel and think and act by our own.

Have you never heard of group activity? If you want to counter that each person makes a choice to join the group, very well. But what about societies, totally common in human history, where there has never been any alternative to group activity. To say that feeling and thinking are inside our own minds, without specifying that the parameters, the language of our minds, is social, is just ahistorical and silly.

3. Therefore every single human in history has been egoistic.

You can't say that unless you define egoistic so nebulously as to be meaningless for our discourse. What do you mean: that the peasant in Medieval France made calculations as to the most rational choices for his existence? He didn't have the language, the symbols, to think that way!

4. Whether this egoism is rational or not, or psychological or not is another question.

It ain't rational, psychological or historical.

RED DAVE

[Adrian Selby]

I have to agree with Dave here, even a rudimentary study of how we live shows that there are coginitive 'loops' into the environment, social and geographic, intrinsic to the way our brains operate, by which we adapt and are adapted by, and as such, we regulate behaviour and there are external influences that regulate our behaviour that to me makes it seem better to model who we are not just as closed systems, but as open subsystems of supersystems that are both interpersonal and more massively social.

This notion that we are individual sovereign beings is well outdated.

[Will I Am]

In light of recent personal and international events, I recalled...


For the word "We" must never be
spoken, save by one's choice and as a
second thought. This word must never be
placed first within man's soul, else it
becomes a monster, the root of all the evils
on earth, the root of man's torture by men,
and of an unspeakable lie.

The word "We" is as lime poured over men,
which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes
all beneath it, and that which is white
and that which is black are lost equally
in the grey of it. It is the word by
which the depraved steal the virtue of
the good, by which the weak steal the
might of the strong, by which the fools
steal the wisdom of the sages…

(Big snip)


…It is my eyes which see, and the sight of
my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is
my ears which hear, and the hearing of my
ears gives its song to the world. It is my
mind which thinks, and the judgement of
my mind is the only searchlight that can
find the truth. It is my will which chooses,
and the choice of my will is the only edict
I must respect.


- extracts from “Anthem” by Rand.

[Adrian Selby]

Bland Rand was all I could think about that lot, but there we are.

She could do with some lessons to improve that prose.