RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Understanding Addiction -- One Objectivist's View

Monday
September 19, 2005

Understanding Addiction -- One Objectivist's View by Michael Stuart Kelly

The universal aspect of all addictions is that the sense of identity has been contaminated and the faculty of volition has atrophied. In the case of drugs and alcohol, there is a chemically induced craving. These are the parts of the mind and body that need to get better. Then the rest will follow. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (138 messages)

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 7:49pm

Andy said of Michael:

Your problem is that you like to play the victim.

I disagree with you completely on this Andy, and frankly, it psychologizing at it's most basic level. Boo Hiss!

Ethan

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:14pm

Just checking in for a sec.

Joe R, I have more comments, because I think I can reach a middle ground with you (that is, if you are still interested - going on the tone of your last post).

But something amused me to no end.

MICHAEL, YOUR PROBLEM IS THAT YOU LIKE TO PLAY THE VICTIM.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Solo now has a new Drooling Beast!

Can I step into your shoes on this one, Linz? Might tempt me to start drinking again...

//;-)

More later... (and thanks Jody and Ethan and others...)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/21, 9:29pm)

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:56pm

Andy,

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss my experiences with addicts and addiction,

Why?

Jody,

With that said, can't we just all go for a drink?

I'm game!

Amigo,

Bonk!

gw

Edit: Robert, get a Hoffer thread going.....Please!!!!!

(Edited by gary williams on 9/21, 8:59pm)

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:08pm

Hey you guys who want guys 'n gals to take a hike--take a hike.:-)

--Brant

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 9:26pm

Whew!

Finally finished my personal business.

Joe,

To start with, I do hope I am not tiring you simply because we have not come to a common understanding yet. Part of the problem returned between us, which I think is that we are not going from the same premises, however both of our premises are grounded in Objectivism.

Mine is that consciousness is a living existent. Then I develop from there. You have not mentioned this premise, nor my conclusions on the biological nature of it, nor whether it is possible for a consciousness to be sick (in addition to brain cell illness), nor how I arrive at addiction from there.

Your starting premise is that addiction is a choice, and you call that the typical Objectivist position. Your premise of consciousness apparently does not include health and disease. At least it is not considered.

btw - Could you please tell me where your "typical Objectivist position" is found in Ayn Rand's writings? I remember her writing that addiction is so vile an evil that it is an abomination. To me, that would be the standard Objectivist position.

Sort of like the homosexuality thing...

Then you accuse me of using "loaded" words. Come on. Is there now a politically correct form of addressing this issue? I am seeking truth wherever it may be found. Loaded or otherwise, truth is truth. As you stated about definitions, what is important is the definitions you adopt. All the rest is word games. I am basing my particular search for truth on Objectivist metaphysics (extended to biology) and epistemology. I have not seen you refute those premises.

Jody made an extremely astute remark. On your summation, you made several comments about choice and Jody asked you where I have stated otherwise. He's right. I never did.

The only thing I did was say that choice was necessary (since choice is the function of a faculty of volition) but that choice was not the whole story. There are other components involved, including disease.

You keep trying to make my words mean that choice is not necessary for overcoming addiction. I resist the pigeonhole and that seems to irritate you.

My position is that choice is not the only component.

You offer a dichotomy between A and B and I choose neither.

Maybe an exchange I had on the Internet about this discussion here with a dear friend about this will help you understand my position better:

Friend - I do think there needs to be a lot of sorting out between physically addictive properties, volitional issues, automatized issues, and so forth.

Me: That is precisely the lid I am trying to blast off this damn package concept of addiction/alcoholism. Only after the sorting is done, what is disease, what is morals, what is hormones, etc etc etc can be determined. After that, specific treatments can be designed for specific symptoms.

So I guess the basic problem I have with the "traditional Objectivist position" or the free will versus determinism debate is that they treat addiction as a huge package concept - a moral issue only, or not - that ignores essential elements of it.

Oversimplification.

In my article, I specifically stated that there many types of addiction. I stand by what I wrote.

Michael

PS to other readers. I have been so engaged in this discussion that I have not extended my thank you to those I missed. I will do so a little later so as not to accumulate a run of posts from the same poster.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:57pm

Andy, I'm glad you found my discussion useful. Thank you.

Jody, I can't tell if MSK agrees or disagrees with my summary. I assume he doesn't since he keeps arguing that I'm wrong, that I am offering false dichotomies, and that I am offering false package deals. But even after all that, he claims that he never disagreed. It's a mystery I can't be bothered trying to solve.

So my summary isn't to try to define MSK's position, but my own.

MSK, your latest post did nothing to clarify things for me. It just told me I was wrong a few times without saying why. I have to affirm my position that it's not worth continuing this discussion. I'll let you have the last word. I will only add two comments. First, by "traditional Objectivist view", I wasn't referring to Rand's writings, but what I've seen pretty universally agreed upon by most Objectivists. It wasn't intended as an argument from authority or anything, so just think of that as a placeholder for the position I summarized.

Second, despite my disagreements with your essay, I think it was worthwhile that you wrote it. It did an excellent job of clarifying what an addict sometimes goes through.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:39pm

Joe,

I don't want the last word. I want understanding. You have a good mind and I value your input. I am still groping since I laid a foundation here, but there are so many things still to analyze. Yet I am sure of my premises.

I am not saying that you are wrong (all or nothing). Given the premises you are using, you are logically right. I am merely saying that the analysis according to the premises you adopt is extremely incomplete. The concept of addiction is oversimplified, but partially correct.

My wish is to add to it, fill it out, not overturn it.

The free will/determinism dichotomy serves for one part of addiction. It does not for another.

Not Joe is wrong.

Not competing. Trying to understand. Trying to interact intelligently. Using my mind the best way I know how.

Thank you for your kind words. They do mean a lot to me.

Michael

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 6:18am

Jody,

It's all well and good for you to stand on the sidelines and chide me to get along with the rest. What you are overlooking is that I have done nothing more than firmly disagree with your friends like Michael and Sarah (well, I didn't even disagree with her, I just honestly answered her questions). I was repaid with vituperation. I am not obligated to be a sap when people take offense for no rational reason.

As for the nonsense of having the last word, if I get it is usually by default. That's because I am right and no one has any rational basis for disagreement. I am baffled why I should take any shame in that. Is it because we're back to people irrationally having hurt feelings when I do that?

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 6:21am

Gary,

I said:

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss my experiences with addicts and addiction,

You asked:

Why?

For the simplest of all reasons, it's none of your business.

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 6:32am

Ethan,

You like Michael misunderstand psychologizing. It is not the observation that someone is engaging in a particular behavior. Any of us can do that by nothing more than paying attention to someone. Psychologizing is the assignment of a cause for that behavior without substantial basis for doing so.

I have observed that Michael likes to play the victim. He did it again in the post following yours by claiming to be a "Drooling Beast" victim like Linz. He is always quick to don the mantle of victimhood. That is observable behavior. Psychologizing would be assigning a cause to that behavior without good reason. For example, I said Michael does it because he is addicted to it. You could call that psychologizing, except that my reason for doing so is Michael's repeated statements that he was an addict. Plus I did issue a caveat that no one should take my word for it, because I don't know Michael.

So I'll take a rap on my knuckles for putting a reason out there as to why Michael plays the victim, but the fact he does is plain.

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 7:12am

Andy said:

I have observed that Michael likes to play the victim.

No, you inferred this. To say that he likes to "play the victim" is the psychologizing, according to the definition you gave. Andy also said:

He is always quick to don the mantle of victimhood. That is observable behavior.

Once again, this is your inference as to the cause of his behavior. You have observed no such behavior. Jeff is correct; you are psychologizing.

In post #67, Andy said:

As for the nonsense of having the last word, if I get it is usually by default. That's because I am right and no one has any rational basis for disagreement. I am baffled why I should take any shame in that. [Emphasis added.]

Is there no limit to your arrogance? That's just a rhetorical question.
Glenn

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:30am

Has Andy been sandbagging?-

I always counsel an addict to stay away from the therapeutic culture

Counsel an addict? Do you do this on an amateur, or professional basis?

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/22, 8:47am)

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 8:56am

Glenn,

You are confused. I did not have to infer anything about Michael's behavior. When he takes grievance from impersonal statements I have made on subjects like the definition of hero, the practice of psychology, supply and demand, and addiction, he is playing the victim. The simple reason for this is that he is not a genuine victim. No psychologizing involved at all. Just clear-eyed observation.

Now if you want to label as psychologizing the statement of my belief as to why Michael does what he does, you'd be on firmer ground. Beat me up on that if you want. However, don't waste a lot of time on it, because haven't vested much into that belief. I admit that it's a guess, although probably a good one. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by Michael's silence for a month about his past addictions.

As for my alleged arrogance about being right, the statement of mine you bold-faced was in the context of a limited circumstance. If it is arrogance to know when I'm right and to be unapologetic about it, then I'll gladly be known as a sonofabitch by you.

What I do find interesting is the large number of people in this forum ready to have their feelings hurt or to be outraged (like you) by a person's unqualified statement of his belief. Why do you prisses have to have every statement you read softened by "I think" or "I believe" or "IMO" (or better yet, "IMHO") or "I dunno, maybe ..." lest your little world is rocked? Where is the benevolence (or just the commonsense) that the writer of an uncushioned statement is making it in a good faith attempt to explain what he believes as straightforwardly as possible? In fact, why isn't it psychologizing when you assign ill motives like arrogance to plain-spokeness?

If you have no response to this and leave me with the last word, I'll know why. ;-)

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:16am

MSK (article): "Anyone can make a decision based on whim, and calling whim 'free will' is a mistake."

MSK (post 46): "This does not mean that the addiction is making his choices. It means that they are being made based on whim - without any ethical considerations to guide them."

MSK (post 46): "His choices in this context are responses to impulses and stimuli, not chosen value judgments (for the most part)."

Joe R (post 55): "Repeated drug use (or pick your addiction) is a series of choices. . . ."

Jody (post 58) to Joe R: "This is a brilliant and succinct summation, but where has Michael said otherwise?"

MSK (post 64): "Jody made an extremely astute remark. On your summation, you made several comments about choice and Jody asked you where I have stated otherwise. He's right. I never did."

MSK, you claim you "never did", but your earlier remarks quoted above are easily read that way. The essence of free will is making decisions or choices. If they are not well thought out or whims, they are still choices. Your earlier remarks say they "aren't really".

I offer this only as an observer and don't have the interest or time in getting more involved.

Joe R (post 65): "Second, despite my disagreements with your essay, I think it was worthwhile that you wrote it. It did an excellent job of clarifying what an addict sometimes goes through."

Ditto.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:19am

Rich,

Has Andy been sandbagging?

I'll give you three things wrong with asking this question:

1. You asked the question without reading the answer I've already given. As I said before, I value my privacy and that of others more than proving myself to people who rely too heavily upon authority as a source of the truth. I see that too many here would rather put faith into the truth of my words because of my authority on the subject than put reason to work into understanding those words. I'm not obliged to assist them in that bit of irrationality.

2. Your question is an impertinent package deal. It assumes I've been withholding from the discussion information you were entitled to have - namely, my private affairs. My experience with addiction and addicts is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

3. Also implicit in your question is that experience trumps reason. That sets up a false dichotomy. Objectivist epistemology shows us the two work hand in hand to give us a broader knowledge of the world than direct personal experience can ever provide. While all of our knowledge is rooted in experience - the direct perception of the world around us - we can through reason induce principles of the truth from our personal experience and apply those principles to situations we lacked direct experience of. In short, no one has to be an addict or deal extensively with addicts to understand the truth about addiction.

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:31am

Andy,
I said it was a rhetorical question. If you don't know what that means, look it up.
You asked:

In fact, why isn't it psychologizing when you assign ill motives like arrogance to plain-spokeness?

Apparently you don't know the meaning of arrogance either. My dictionary defines it as: an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims. In other words, by calling you arrogant I am claiming that there is no basis in reality, IMHO, for your feelings of superiority manifested in you presumptuous claims.

As to your calling me a priss: I've been called worse by much better than you. But, I will let you get in the last word because, gosh, you are right and I don't have any rational basis for disagreement.
Glenn

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:06am

Glenn,

In other words, by calling you arrogant I am claiming that there is no basis in reality, IMHO, for your feelings of superiority manifested in you presumptuous claims.

I didn't know I had "feelings of superiority". You are a remarkable man to know my mind better than I do through nothing more than the dessicated medium of the internet. Thank you for the information.

Andy

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:11am

Andy,

Adam Reed had you right. You are a shit tossing troll.

Ethan

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:17am

REFRESHER COURSE - OBJECTIVISM 101

(This is for practically everybody on Solo.)

In months of posting on Solo, I have yet to see the following word anywhere. It must have occurred, but I did not see it.

Psycho-epistemology.

My mouth fell to the floor when I received an e-mail last night from another dear friend who used that word in talking about my article. I had simply forgotten to include it and the bulk of my whole article was based on it. Future revisions definitely will correct this

Here is Ayn Rand's definition from The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, The Romantic Manifesto:

Psycho-epistemology is the study of man's cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.

I remember reading somewhere that she attributed the identification of this concept to Barbara Branden.

She adopted it and built on it to generate her entire theory of art. Now I have built on it to properly identify the components of addiction.

By the way...

"Sense of life" is a psycho-epistemological concept. SOLO means Sense Of Life Objectivists.

The very foundation of the concept of Solo, the forum we all post on, is psycho-epistemology and nobody ever talks about it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

Note to Merlin: Thank you for an intelligent observation that shows the error I keep hammering at. The word "addiction" means much more than the package concept of consciously chosen behavior, but ignoring all the rest, including any possible psycho-epistemological aspect. The part that can be chosen is governed by ethics. The part that cannot is not. When I used the word "addiction" in the article, I probably need to keep a tighter rein on which part I am talking about. I will deal with that in revisions.

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:30am

Michael-

How dare you mention 'automatic functions of the subconscious' you damned determinist. ;)