RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Kant And The New Tactics To Destroy Objectivism

Monday
December 20, 2004

Kant And The New Tactics To Destroy Objectivism by Manfred F. Schieder

Under the pretense of “bettering and correcting"(!) Objectivism, a new breed of attacks against it has been launched by academics, commentators and sundry intellectuals. Some do it aiming at accommodating Objectivism to Kant and all of them, whether declared or implicitly, follow the Kantian guide of destructiveness. By doing so they unwittingly confirm that Ayn Rand perfectly recognized Kant as the paramount of nowaday's evilness, following the path whose philosophical originator was Plato.
(Read more...)
Discuss this Article (77 messages)

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:01am

Manfred,

"The capacities of our senses developed, thus, by evolution in accordance to what really exists."

Can you (or anyone else) please cite an evolutionary scientist or biologist that defends this claim? Or a philosopher that is allied to them that does? Thanks.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:02am

Next,

How else would you have it said? Evolution is the selection of traits based on said traits ability to bring success to the organism in dealing with reality. That wich helps you survive long enough to procreate is grounded directly in dealing with reality.

Ethan

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:46am

Hi Manfred:

Thanks for your fine article!!!!

I wonder what my friend Fred Seddon's response will be to your assessment?

BTW, in case you want to edit your piece, my last name is Younkins not Younkin.

:)

I am looking forward to seeing a lot more of your essays at SOLO!!

Great job!!!!!

Ed

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:46am

Ethan,

I'm not interested in how I would say it. I'm interested in how evolutionary scientists actually say it, and why they say it that way.

That wich helps you survive long enough to procreate is grounded directly in dealing with reality.

Just show me which evolutionary biologist or scientist makes this claim, because no evolutionary biologist I have read makes it, and for many good reasons. That said, your way of putting it is an improvement on Manfred's, but still has many flaws based on what I know evolutionary biologists actually claim. Many things that can be deemed immoral or irrational are "grounded directly in dealing with reality" in evolutionary biology. Therefore, "dealing with reality" is not equivalent to "surviving long enough to procreate" in the way that would help Manfred's argument.

But maybe there is an evolutionary biologist that makes that claim. I'd just like to be acquainted with that biologist's work.

Edited for minor correction.

(Edited by Next Level on 12/20, 10:55am)

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:56am

Next said:

but still has many flaws based on what I know evolutionary biologists actually claim

And what would that be? It's hard for me to address your point without you making it.

Ethan

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:10am

Ethan,

I've made enough of it for anyone acquainted with what evolutionary biologists actually say to dissect it. But I'll make another point if you need more grist: some evolutionary scientists actually argue from the limitations of sensory perception to make claims about what kinds of environments our senses evolved to handle accurately.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:38am

Next,

Evolution doesn't choose what traits to "evolve." Traits arise through genetic mutation and are passed on if said mutation is better at dealing with reality, and thus allows the creature to survive and procreate. Not being able to smell as well as a dog, doesn't mean the dog evolved to smell some other dimension of existence that we can't perceive. What is your angle in this discussion?

Ethan

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:46am

I simply note that if one has a philosophy, such as Objectivism or my own, which places the conclusions of science in a different place than would the empiricism dominant in today's scientific vulture, it is useless to appeal to the authority of some, most, or all evolutionary biologists, without first making an explicit argument for the philosophical premises accepted by these scientists.

And again, my view is that Objectivism, on this issue, wins hands down.

That said, I think the Objectivist treatment of Kant, while having some valid and important objections, is blunt, caustic, and unsubtle and misses valuable philosophical insights original with Kant which Objectivism itself subsumes. And I honesty think Objectivism could show a bit more ecumenical respect for philosophy as son, as could strengthen itself with something of a warrior's code of honour and respect for enemies.

Not that I love Kant, by any means- Kant is no friend to sex workers. Indeed, I find it amusing that the more moralistic Objectivist sneers at my profession I have heard are eeriely reminiscent of Kant's own language- and premises.

Jeanine Ring )(*)(

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:05pm

That said, I think the Objectivist treatment of Kant, while having some valid and important objections, is blunt, caustic, and unsubtle and misses valuable philosophical insights original with Kant which Objectivism itself subsumes.

Jeanine, could you give some examples of Kant's insights that Objectivism subsumes?

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:22pm

Ethan,

Traits arise through genetic mutation and are passed on if said mutation is better at dealing with reality, and thus allows the creature to survive and procreate.

Better at dealing with reality in what way? That is my angle.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:57pm

I simply note that if one has a philosophy, such as Objectivism or my own, which places the conclusions of science in a different place than would the empiricism dominant in today's scientific vulture, it is useless to appeal to the authority of some, most, or all evolutionary biologists, without first making an explicit argument for the philosophical premises accepted by these scientists.

And again, my view is that Objectivism, on this issue, wins hands down.

Jeanine,

You have the right to such views. It is easy to use philosophic arguments to protect yourself from testable claims that do not influence your everyday lifestyle. I do not waste my time with such arguments anymore.

May I rest on ad hominem? Push comes to shove when you have to pick between some testable scientific claim and your philosophy, to the degree that they are incompatible. If you had refused to have a sexual operation and claimed that science couldn't solve your problems, I might have taken you more seriously. Maybe the "empiricist " supporters of the "vulture" that gave you that opportunity share your antagonistic view of science, but I doubt it. When science works, even pagans don't care. But pagans, like all people, are free to disagree with the aspects of science that do not influence their practical lifestyle.

I'm asking where in the theory of evolution and natural selection that Manfred draws his statement from. It is a fair question to ask, whether or not he agrees with the premises that scientists present, once he agrees that he was taking his cue from evolutionary biology, and his answer will illuminate me in some fashion when he presents it.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:14pm

Msr. Smith-

Essentially, Kant's postulation of experience as occurring according to categories, though false in itself, opened up the entire realm of a subjective component to human perception. Rand's synthesis of classical "objectivist" and modern "subjectivist" thought would never have been possible without the development of the latter accent, which could never have occurred in philosophy without Kant's insights. Rand's emphasis on context reflects influences from Marx and Nietzsche (as documented by Sciabarra) that is an inheritance of post-Kantian philosophy. Rand sometimes took for granted this attention to the subjective and personal, but this entire way of thinking is marginal to philosophy prior to Rousseau, and it was Kant who took Rousseau's emphases into technical as opposed to literary philosophy.

Jeanine Ring )(*)(

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:17pm

Next,

I deleted the post that I typed, but the gist of it was that traits that help us survive and pass on those traits are the nly ones that matter from a purely evolutionary standpoint. How this relates to reality should be quite obvious: eg fur on an animal that lives in cold climate, or allows it to thrive in a climate where it others of its kind would normally perish. OR A brain that allows us to come up with ideas like killing the animal and wearing its fur to surivive in a harsh climate. Reality, and dealing with what really exists drives a speciaes from an evolutionary standpoint, but at the heart of it is random mutation that causes traits to be expressed in organisms.

Ethan

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:13pm

Jeanine wrote:

Not that I love Kant, by any means--Kant is no friend to sex workers. Indeed, I find it amusing that the more moralistic Objectivist sneers at my profession I have heard are eeriely reminiscent of Kant's own language and premises.

I challenge you to write an article justifying sex work from an Objectivist viewpoint. I think it can be done, but it would be most convincing from someone who works in the field.

Amy Hayden gave a talk at TOC some years ago called "Sacred Sex" or some similar title. Evidently the audio tape did not sell well enough for them to continue to carry it. My understanding is that Amy argued that sex is too important a value to market morally through prostitution and stripping -- and she argued this as someone who worked in the latter industry. She did not argue it should be *illegal*, but simply that treating it as a marketable commodity is *immoral*. I never listened to the tape, but I heard it got mixed reviews.

My counter argument would be that not all of us, by nature, are suited for a committed romantic relationship. So it could be quite moral for a person of that nature to engage the services of a courtesan. I have read mixed estimates of whether Ayn Rand would agree or disagree with this view.

Food for thought, Jeanine. Please consider it.

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 12/20, 3:29pm)

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:37pm

Essentially, Kant's postulation of experience as occurring according to categories, though false in itself, opened up the entire realm of a subjective component to human perception. Rand's synthesis of classical "objectivist" and modern "subjectivist" thought would never have been possible without the development of the latter accent, which could never have occurred in philosophy without Kant's insights.

What is the "subjective" component of perception?

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:04pm

Luther,

You stated: I challenge you to write an article justifying sex work from an Objectivist viewpoint. I think it can be done, but it would be most convincing from someone who works in the field.

My reply is; it cannot be done. One could write an article on how there should be no laws against such, but not one that justifies the action itself, certainly not from any rationally moral point of view.

Bear in mind that I am assuming here that your reference with the words "sex-work" is a polite reference to prostitution.

Later you stated: My understanding is that Amy argued that sex is too important a value to market morally through prostitution and stripping

She did, and I agree.

By the way Luther, I don't know you well enough to know how much of the seedier side of life you have been exposed to, but I can assure you that within the hierarchy of status among prostitutes, the term 'courtesan' would be reserved for a tiny (miniscule) minority of hookers. It would entail at an absolute minimum for the prostitute (male or female) to be drop-dead stone-cold gorgeous to get away with using the term 'courtesan' in the first place. Otherwise such a pretentious title for selling ones ass would cause howls of laughter and ridicule. The reality for the most part is, people that are far from attractive making ends meet by selling their ass every now and then. Most hookers do it for drug money, and still others to fullfill fantasies that have become obsessions (especially true of male hookers).

Much of the crap you have been reading in this forum lately is a game of mind fuck being played under the assumption that the audience is naive enough to buy it.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/20, 3:29pm)

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:16pm

Msr. Setzer-

I've already written such an article, and received extreme reactions, good and bad, when I posted it to We the Living and Atlantis II.

However, I no longer have any interest in arguing this before an Objectivist audience; I have no doubt of my convictions, nor of the value of my work, but I do not think that in the last analysis Objectivism truly values personal happiness so much as adherence to an ethic promotive of a bourgeois society; Objectivism is ultimately concerned with whether someone embodies the 'rational' values that produce health, wealth, and security, and it is ultimately willing to kill passionate happiness that is not proper to a middle-class society.

The evidence for this is spattered across the last two weeks of this site. But personally, the final close occurred when I saw that the degree to which another followed Objectivism was the degree my joy and passion were not admired and respected but derided and punished. When I see a philosophy snarling is hatred because it sees someone extremely happy in disobedience to its morality, that is the time to realize that one must seek elsewhere for a defense of one's life. I have done so, and seeing all the more how deep in goes in the philosophy that sadly misfulfilled Rand's beautiful songs, I don't want to write under this. Meaning no personal offense to you, and respecting the motion of a challenge, I don't want to defend my Life by standards I do not love.

In case anyone else here wishes to discuss, promote, or defame sex work or courtesanship on SOLO, I hereby note that I am not interested in discussing it here or at this time, and my silence is not a sanction of anything anyone might say.

regards,

Jeanine Ring )(*)(

P.S. On 'sacred sex'; I hope I never meet Amy Hayden, because if I do I will not be able to restrain myself from slapping her until she bleeds. How dare she appropriate that term in such an insulting manner.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:52pm

George wrote:

The reality for the most part is, people that are far from attractive making ends meet by selling their ass every now and then. Most hookers do it for drug money, and still others to fullfill fantasies that have become obsessions (especially true of male hookers).

I actually meant places where that industry is legal and health monitored like Nevada. Various sites I have read about the more reputable brothels such as Chicken Ranch indicate conditions more beneficial than those you describe. However, this thread rapidly drifts off topic and I will drop the subject now. I also understand this can be a sore discussion for many and since my experience in that industry amounts to nil, I have little else to say.

Luke Setzer

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:55pm

Well, Msr. Cordero,

since you've got past your under-the-table insults and openly accused me of lying, let me identify reality as I see it and name you an ignorant, prejudiced bigot, who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about concerning prostitution, ancient or modern, and certainly does not understand the souls of at least a dozen friends I know who live or have lived the Life. Their shameless color and courage shines them for more admiration and respect than I have for you. I note you have insulted all of them.

But believe of me what you wish; I have my own path and Life. As for you, well, frankly, your philosophy deserves you. You show the raw nature of the bourgeois ethic well and better than I ever could.

But I do have my pride, and you can henceforth be relieved of the ugly contamination of talking to a whore, for I will not deal with someone who treats me in this manner.

Let me just say that your kind is the kind of reason that I commissioned a button to wear, which I've occasionally worn to work.

It reads "NOT YOUR KIND OF WORLD".

)(*)(

Nothing changes.

Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:58pm

George,

Damn. That was brutally honest. I just had to sanction it!

Luther,

If anyone can pull that off, I'd be very surprised, but it would be interesting if someone takes on the challenge. It would be interesting issue for Objectivists to read, discuss, and debate. By the way, that Amy Hayden sounds like my kind of lady. Too bad her tape is no longer available because I'd be interested to hear what she had to say.