About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, November 25, 2002 - 7:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cameron,

You have outdone yourself. This article is beautifully written and demonstrates your excellent grasp of these issues. The theory of universals is the middle ground where all philosophies have to meet. It is here that men decide what stand they will take and everything else follows. Tnak you far a wonderful article.

Post 1

Monday, November 25, 2002 - 7:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry Cameron, that would be "thank you for a wonderful article". See what happens when you try to drink coffee, carry on a phone conversation, and type with one hand? :)

Post 2

Monday, November 25, 2002 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great article! It very much reminds me of the stolen concept fallacy that Rand so often referred to. Their supposed denial of the concept of human nature depends can only "work" if you start from the idea that humans have some sort of nature. Only they believe that the particular nature that man has is unidentifiable. You could make this into a very nice two-part article if you decide to write about those who like to use the awful phrase, "... It's only human."

Happy Refuting!
Adam

Post 3

Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The difficulty with the concept of "human nature" is contained in Objectivism itself. That is, Objectivism (Rand) does not solve it to (her) its own satisfaction. It is not that "there is no human nature" but that the classification may be based on non-essentials. Therefore, even if it were valid, it would not be the most accurate or useful way to look at these apparently similar beings.

Let me try to explain. If Rand's "Missing Link" hypothesis is correct, then the concept of "human nature" includes both beings with a "conceptual mentality" and an "anti-conceptual" mentality. Clearly then it would be more useful to have two different concepts for these two very different kinds of beings, even if we grant both of them voting rights and call them together "human nature" for polling purposes.

It is a difficulty that runs throughout Rand's work. It is not a "fluke" of one essay.

For example, in "We the Living" the two different beings implied are the "Living' vs the "Dead". If humanity is so divided then a concept which attempts to put the two groups in the same boat would be based on a non-essential and would create a "package deal".

Leaving Objectivism aside and looking to the history of philosophy, we see, begining with Plato, the idea of souls of Gold, Silver and Bronze to divide "humanity" and make its nature more clear. There are dozens of other similar and better divisions that I know of, some which are older than Plato. Objectivism links this kind of thinking to anti-freedom political thought and with the example of Plato, this is true. However, this is not a necessary implication. I think it is very possible to accept the missing link hypothesis and still defend the individuals of the "anti-conceptual mentality" from enslavement.

As an aside... What the anti-essentialists may be most afraid of is not so much the idea of one concept for all humans, "Human Nature." They may be afraid of a revival of the classical ideas of a proven division which would, they might think, lead the superior "conceptual" group to claim rights over the inferior "anti-conceptual" one.

Post 4

Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philippe,

Sak passe? How wonderful to see you posting here! I knew that sooner or later we would get the chance to hear from you. Always preferably sooner than later.:)

I love your use of Plato's divisions, and I hate to sound pedantic, but they actually belong to Hesiod who was the first to speak of the "ages" of man (in the Theogany). Or did you have something else in mind? Are you speaking of "The Republic"? Plato, having "feet of clay," merely borrowed from Hesiod. There, that statement should stir up some trouble. LOL

I am especially interested in the content of your last paragraph about the anti-essentialists fearing the revival of some classical ideas. Oh boy, you must be posting from Haiti, yeah? LOL Can you expand a little bit on the "superior conceptual group" claiming rights over their inferiors? I am especially interested in this topic (have you seen my "Prolegomenon to a Discussion of Eugenics"?)


http://3.avatarreview.com:8081/WildeGuy/


I think it is very important to make it clear what it is that we are saying when we speak of a superior or inferior group of thinkers. You know our American democratic thinking and Oh! how we loathe anyone with claims to superiority :) Rand was very particular about the way she spoke of such ideas.

Salut, Anthony

Post 5

Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anthony can you check the Hesoid reference? I beleive, if I remember correctly, that he speaks of the ages of man from a historical point of view, as in the age of gold, the age of silver, etc. Plato, in The Republic speaks of a division of man applicable to all ages--so that what you have is three species of man. The idea of man being so divided is much older than both Hesoid and Plato, althogh the number of divisions and their names vary according to which set of writings you follow.

In Rand the suggestion is a division in two. The conceptual and the anti-conceptual mentalities. The anti-democratic possibilities are enormous and historically many (if not all or most) societies which have adopted or adapted from philosophy such divisions have not afforded the inferior division(s) the same legal status as the superior ones. The classic example of course is Plato's scheme in the Republic.

Imagine if Leonard Peikoff could prove that there was a conceptual mentality and an anti-conceptual mentality and that he had a test which proved it scientifically one way or the other; and he found that 70% of the population was of the anti-conceptual mentality. What do you think he would advocate as a political cosequence of his findings? Would he let the anti-conceptuals vote?

(I think they could still vote and that a division of that kind does not necessarily have to lead to the establishment of legal classes. However I have to admit that historically this has often happened.)

But who trusts Leonard???

My point though in my original resonse what to illustrate that the problem is not external to Objectivism, even if Objetivism has a better approach than the anti-essentialists. As they say, "In the land of the Blind..."

Post 6

Thursday, November 28, 2002 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Philippe,

You are too much! LOL I am going to check those references tonight in fact. I am writing a paper on the status of hesiodic concepts of "kronos" and "kairos" (Greek concepts of time) as they are adapted by both Plato and Aristotle. These form the conceptual elements of Greek history, and yes Hesiod was one of these historians. I am sure Plato uses the "ages" as a direct borrowing from Hesiod. They do appear in "Republic", I think in the last portion. There is a great old book by G.R. Levy "The Myths of Plato" that is one of the best studies on this topic.

Oscar Wilde, the Victorian's funnest Hellenist, also employed these concepts in his plays and general aesthetic criticism. I am sure you are aware of his keen eye with regard to human nature. In this sense I believe he was rather more the Platonist. I also think that you are correct to see this connection between Rand and the Hellenist tradition (to avoid specifically identifying Rand with Plato, not a safe thing to do on an Objectivist site, HA) There are certainly many ways in which these ideas may be applied. I intend to make the most of it.

BTW: I do sincerely hope that Leonard Peikoff does not think some of the things you suggest:) Then again, there is nothing so lame as being modest in our statements.

Thank you again for engaging me on this. I hope to continue this discussion. Happy Thanksgiving, ne manges pas trop!

Post 7

Friday, November 29, 2002 - 6:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I cannot say Rand's division is similar to Plato's because Plato's division (in The Republic) is based on innate (genetic) differences between men while Rand, in "The Missing Link," at least, suggests that the division occurs as a result of each particular man deciding volitionally whether or not to exercise his conceptual mentality.

The basic point I was making is that Rand does HAVE a division. In other words, she does not just have "Human Nature". We can compare her division of "man" to the ones we know from history. There are dozens or more such divisions. Some of which are also based on volition. I chose Plato as an illustration of a division because it is the one most likely to be known on this site. I could have chosen Aristotle too--his idea of "natural slaves". But it is less known actually. And I didn't want to suggest inconsistencies in both Rand and Aristotle on the same page.(!).

The whole idea of such divisions is potentially very anti-democratic and this is perhaps why the idea appears novel to a general audience even though historically it is common. Or it is automatically associated with genetics of the Hitler mentality. However the idea is not incompatible with a republican form of government.

If LP ever comes up with this machine he will certainly find himself in the anti-concptual mentality, and he will proceed to destroy the evidence of his senses by destroying the machine. So you see, the idea has a built in saftey device.

Post 8

Friday, November 29, 2002 - 7:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Philippe,

Thank you for the clarifications. I agree with you completely and the reading of "The Missing Link" that you offer is excellent. I don't think many people read that essay enough. It is an excellent essay and the arguments go way beyond any of the criticisms I see emanating from the contemporary circles of debate. The EP people would do better to look at Rand in her full context and see the value of her philosophy as a synthetic and integrated system. I am thinking in particular of Steven Pinker who probably did not even read Rand's estimate of the "Blank Slate" argument. She actually reformed it!

To be quite explicit where I stand in this discussion, I want to emphasize: I do not want to say any false discoveries or re-trials made with regard to the alleged inferiorities of certain peoples. Such thinking belongs, as you know, to the dustbins of the past. What I do want to see, is a continuous improvement of all aspects of human life! Let machines do the work! I don't want to read any essay either: "Do Machines have Rights?"

Incidentally, I want to quote something from Wilde's "The Soul of Man Under Socialism":

"Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine. And I have no doubt that it will be so."

.....................

"At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the countryman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure--which, and not labor, is the aim of man--or making beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is that civilization requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human Slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends."

I don't agree with his conclusion over the ownership of such machines, but he saw the connection between technology and culture that so many cretans overlooked in the twentieth century. Had Rand paid more attention to the revolution in technology and the future of computers she would probably have enslaved an entire population of PC's :-)

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.