RoR: Forum

I think it's fair to say that society won't tolerate large numbr of people living on the streets, etc. People will ultimately look to government to take care of social problems unless we take care of them ourselves.

Post 21

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:24am

"Yet I can point to several areas where I strongly disagree with what you call "Objectivism" and do it both concept-wise and from authority (Rand, specifically)."

Oh yeah? Lets see you do it. I am assuming your response will be some Rich Englesque diversion but I'd be glad to see you prove me wrong.

And this : "It seems like Objectivists often adopt selfishness and criticize altruism as an excuse to be mean to people and condemn the practice of helping them. Being nice is seen as some kind of weakness."

Another Englesque smear that you can't back up. People on ROR/SOLO seem to be pretty "nice" to me. The difference is, most of us don't adopt your axiomatic view that so called "nice guys" are necessarily "good guys".

- Jason

Post 22

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 5:45am

Michael,

Although a moral principle stating that you must help others over your own interests is essentially evil, there is nothing wrong with helping others if you wish. On the contrary, in general (but not always), it is psychologically healthy to do so - you are being true to your subconscious value judgments.

There could be something wrong with "helping others if you wish" it if the person you help ends up wasting the resources you give them, or even use the resources to kill you. But I'm using Objectivist ethics, not whatever you wish to do is the good thing to do ethics. Couldn't it be just as psychologically healthy to find someone whom you will benefit from helping, and then helping them? You seem to be claiming there is a conflict between empathy and selfishness.

Post 23

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:01am

Jason,

Sure. That's easy to prove just on the concept issue of Politics being a branch of Ethics. (After all, I was accused of not using the concepts, only the terms.)

Both knowledge and values are needed to put together a social structure, not just values. To recap basic Objectivism, knowledge is the province of Epistemology, values is the province of Ethics and social structure is the province of Politics. I'm talking concepts here, not just labels.

The basic issue of knowledge is faith versus reason. (I really don't want to go into a whole description of these two methods of using your brain - so I presume that you know what they are.) I say that determining an Epistemology is essential to Politics - that Politics grows out of it. When humanity used an Epistemology of faith, the prevailing notion was the Divine Right of Kings (during one part of history), with the ensuing social structure of monarchy that lasted for centuries.

So I would say that, yes, Politics does need Epistemology (faith versus reason) just as much as it needs Ethics as a basis and that it is wrong - or misleading at the least - to say the Politics is a branch of Ethics.

Politics is a branch of philosophy.

Sorry, but that is the Objectivism I learned. Not just cost/benefit or calculations according to context. Do you want Rand quotes on that too? Or do you have any other idea? Did you even read what the man wrote?

And what the hell does Rich Engle have to do with anything? He's my friend. Do you have any problem with that?

Fuck the nice guy stuff if you like. I personally see no virtue in being nasty except when attacked. Also, I never made your axiomatic claim about nice guys being good guys. That's 100% Jason Quintana. Your level of discourse used to be better than putting strawman concepts into someone else's posts.

Where are you learning these things? Nah, forget it...

Michael

Post 24

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:11am

Dean,

There's no conflict at all. Comparing empathy, which is a human emotion like anger, love, fear and so on, and selfishness, which is a philosophical approach to ethics is the same as comparing apples and oranges.

Philosophically speaking, as a selfish person, I choose to acknowledge my nature and let it flourish. If that includes helping others (I especially get great pleasure from helping someone get on his feet and watching him make it on his own from there), well, it is my life and I will do with it what I wish. Who has a right to make me to do otherwise? I prefer psychological health to neurosis. Others have other values.

I can't get more any selfish than that.

What I hate is when callousness and and hostility are held up as a virtue. And I smell this agenda a lot. Callousness and hostility are not even particularly selfish, to tell the truth.

Michael

Post 25

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:14am

Neil,

People will ultimately look to government to take care of social problems unless we take care of them ourselves.

Interesting... I don't look to the government to take care of social "problems". I think your premise is that people in majority are socialist/communist instead of capitalist, and your premise also includes that all groups of people in the future will always be in the majority socialist/communist instead of capitalist.

If the people in the street are destroying things, they should be put triad in court and potentially put in jail until someone willingly pays for the damage. If they don't work to produce enough to survive in jail, and no one decides to help them, then they will die-- in jail instead of continuing to destroy things on the streets. You don't like it? Help them using your own resources. You don't care that much about them? Use your resources for other things.

If people are living on the streets, but not violating someone's private property, then I don't see this as a problem. The streets are owned by someone or some group of people, it will be up to them to determine what degree they will allow people to live on their streets. What sort of philosophical system do I think they should use to determine it? Objectivism of course : ).

Post 26

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:39am

"Where are you learning these things? Nah, forget it..."

Come out with it. This is PRECISELY what I am refering to when I accuse you of Englesque behavior. The appearence of benevolence with snide little comments that aren't direct enough to appear like an insult. Are you accusing me of learning bad habits from Lindsay? Is that what you don't want to say? My comment didn't invoke any strawmen. I've seen you make the
"nice guys"/"good guys" assumption on several occasions.

As to the main part of your post, I am unclear about how this relates to Joe's critique of your earlier post.

"Sorry, but that is the Objectivism I learned. Not just cost/benefit or calculations according to context. Do you want Rand quotes on that too? Or do you have any other idea? Did you even read what the man wrote? "

I don't recall anyone here, including Joe Rowlands who has ever given this explanation regarding Objectivism.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 2/08, 9:12am)

Post 27

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:53am

Neil says:
"I think it's fair to say that society won't tolerate large numbr of people living on the streets, etc. "

What do you mean by "won't tolerate"? What would happen if there are large number of people living on the street?

Post 28

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:54am

In post #19, Michael wrote:

Also, should you choose the path of blanking out the effects of emotional repression in order to set up some kind of primacy of Objectivist philosophy over psychology (which is a false dichotomy anyway), that is your own choice as well. However, psychology does exist and an emotional spectrum is pre-wired into human brains. That is a fact. Philosophy does not change that wiring, it merely can discipline some of it, not even all of it. Much of man's nature came into existence long before conceptual volition evolved and it is still with us.

Michael, I couldn't disagree more. If I choose not to respond to an emotion, I am not repressing it. I can acknowledge the emotion and still not act on it. As to the "pre-wired" statement; we may be "pre-wired" to respond to beauty, for example, but what we consider to be beautiful, what we actually respond to, is not pre-wired. Do all people think, as I do, that a 1957 Ford Thunderbird is beautiful? Would a 10th century person think it was beautiful?

And do you think that radical Muslims are "pre-wired" to react the way they are to cartoons? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, their "philosophy" plays a role in their emotional response?

Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 2/08, 8:55am)

Post 29

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 10:07am

Michael K,

====================
However, psychology does exist and an emotional spectrum is pre-wired into human brains. That is a fact. Philosophy does not change that wiring, it merely can discipline some of it, not even all of it.
====================

But philosophy changes the input signals sent (down the pipe) -- ie. the premises. By changing the direction and intensity of the first cognitive steps taken, it changes the races that one runs. So, even though we work off of the same emotional spectrum, an immense plurality in outcome is possible.

Think of playing an instrument (instruments, like a guitar -- for example -- are pre-wired things), what matters is which strings you strum (and how), how & where you depress strings (a light pressure silences that string), and what pauses you may take in the process -- all aimed at the production of beauty. So, with the SAME guitar (and WITHOUT tuning it differently), I can play vastly different songs (think of the disparity between John Denver and Guns-N-Roses!).

Hard-wired emotional spectrums don't "up-ward cause" philosophy adoption (because we have reflective intellects that can contemplate), instead, there is a down-ward causation -- inputs from various philosophies will then lead to various "outcome" emotions.

Ed

Post 30

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 2:52pm

I sanctioned Ed's post, he is quite right about the philosophical base.

Philosophy does not change that wiring, it merely can discipline some of it, not even all of it. Much of man's nature came into existence long before conceptual volition evolved and it is still with us.

To extend it further, one can take different drugs, choose to surround oneself with different people, act in different ways, etc... all of which can have a significant impact on one's "psychology". After all, one's psychology is simply one's mental processes and behavior, which is defined by what one is, what one's context is, and what one chooses to do, and what one's context becomes. A man is very capable of changing who his is and what his "psychology" is. As technology advances, soon I'll be able to say a man is completely capable of changing who he is, what he does, and what he is capable of doing. Of course one's current state and future is dependant on past states of reality, since reality is causal. We have an exciting future.

Post 31

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 2:58pm

Glenn,

So it is your contention that an emotion like empathy should be eliminated from the human psyche through philosophy? How about anger or fear? How about irritation from hunger? Why not eliminate all emotions? Or eliminate the ones that you don't like (or choose)? That way you don't even need to repress.

On the pre-wired thing, you didn't understand what I was talking about. You mentioned specific examples of choices of beauty as if they invalidate the fact that you can respond to beauty. The response to beauty is pre-wired. On a developing child's level, I would say that most external beauty is very much tied up with human concerns (especially things like mama's breast) and it is automatic. As the child develops, his capacity to choose other things - more specific things - develops. I just don't see where being able to choose something beautiful invalidates the innate capacity to respond to the beautiful. I was talking about an emotional spectrum. Look at the emotional reactions of any developing baby and you will see what I mean. They are about as automatic as you can get.

So here's another question for you. Do you think the human science of psychology even exists?

btw - I fully agree that you can choose not to act on an emotion. Where have I said otherwise? I am arguing against the notion that philosophy can eliminate the need to take emotions into account as a component of a person's mental well-being and happiness. (That would be ethics, not epistemology - but taken to a science level, it is psychology.) In no place do I wish to claim that emotions are tools of cognition, to use a Rand phrase (which is where I perceive a misunderstanding brewing). Moreover, I am arguing against being rude and hostile like a baby in kindergarten and calling that Objectivism, while lending a helping hand to someone who falls down is called evil. Both of these notions are not only false, they are disgusting.

And of course, I put great value in philosophy. Just because psychology exists and observable principles are discerned, that does not invalidate philosophy. What do Muslims have to do with it anyway? I fully agree that their poor philosophy leads to their poor discipline of the mind. Where have I stated otherwise? I also agree that emotions need to be disciplined - the ones that can be, otherwise they will run all over the place and create a holy mess.

This is important, so let me be as clear as possible. Rational philosophy does not invalidate psychology and vice-versa. But a false competition between the two is a subtext I get from many people's posts. I even smell fear for some reason. But when the pertinent matters are considered in balance (as opposed to trying to invalidate one discipline with the other), reason-based philosophy and psychology actually enhance each other. And that's as it should be.

Ed,

If you read what I wrote, I said that philosophy can discipline some of the emotions, but not all of them. Basic fight/flight response comes to mind. There are others. I am getting the feeling that what people call emotions around here has very little to do with the amygdala and more to do with some kind of rational construct.

Michael

Post 32

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:05pm

Michael,

What I hate is when callousness and and hostility are held up as a virtue.

They are a virtue when it brings justice, for example when they are used towards a person who destroys innocent people.

Post 33

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 3:09pm

- All of the most fundamental relationships between the most fundamental parts of reality never change.
- All non-fundamental relationships between the most fundamental parts of reality change.
- The psychology of a human being is a non-fundamental relationship.

Conclusion: The psychology of a human being changes.

Post 34

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:01pm

Dean,

"A person who destroys innocent people" is not what I'm talking about, but I think you already know that. I'm talking about people who use this type of rationale to be callous and hostile to those who do not deserve it, or even to a person they know precious little about, and then proclaim their virtue to the four winds.

That's pure BS, but I see many do it. That is not what Objectivism is all about.

Michael

Post 35

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:45pm

MSK, you can't really expect me to take you seriously! Not after your fine example of connecting politics with esthetics! If that makes me close-minded, I accept it, happily. If that's really the level of intelligence you'd like to be judged on, I'm happy to accommodate you.

Jason, great comments. Looking forward to the challenge. First round was a little dull, as you pointed out. Oh, and you're not alone. I've also noticed the little snide comments. Evidently the belief is catching on that you can be as insulting as you want if you do it in the name of civility.

Glenn, excellent points. It's a shame the reply had nothing to do with your post.

Do you own one?

Post 36

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:13am

Joe,

After all of our exchanges, I certainly don't expect you to take me seriously. You even call my best work "fluff."

And it's your site. You can claim that politics is a branch of ethics if you like. I don't agree, as I find that concept too forced because it excludes a faith/reason basis (epistemology), and I can find no reference at all to it in Rand's writings.

(btw - Aesthetics does have a tie-in with politics at a couple of places, but we need to get away from this personality bickering and discuss ideas before going on. This whole thing is already a mess as it is.)

For the record, I am not taking swipes at Perigo. I disagree with his whole approach and I stated that clearly. He disagrees with mine, too. He did leave a legacy, though, of over-the-top irrational behavior that several people continue to emulate. I have serious problems with calling this behavior "Objectivism." That behavior is what I'm complaining about. Maybe some more time is needed for that to sink in when people read my posts.

What would be the correct manner of talking about that behavior? I presume you are serious about activism. How you treat people you are trying to convince - and how you appear to them - is a valid concern. Or is being intimidated into silence when you encounter that behavior a better approach because you are afraid someone will have a conspiracy theory?

Michael

Post 37

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:46am

Joe posts a picture of a beautiful '57 T-bird and asks:

Do you own one?

No, I wish I did, but I'm married. : )

Michael,
In post #31 you asked me:

So it is your contention that an emotion like empathy should be eliminated from the human psyche through philosophy? How about anger or fear? How about irritation from hunger? Why not eliminate all emotions? Or eliminate the ones that you don't like (or choose)? That way you don't even need to repress.

I really don't see how you got that from my post. There seems to be some confusion between a capacity to experience an emotion and the specific emotional response. Psychology will tell us that humans have the capacity to feel, for example, empathy. But, what in particular evokes empathy in me right now is a different question. And philosophy doesn't determine whether you feel empathy, it determines what you feel empathy toward.

Tibor had an example in one of his "Musings" about watching an news interview with a family of four who were having trouble "making ends meet". My initial response might be to empathize with them, until, as Tibor did, I noticed that the mother was pregnant with their third child. My emotional response changed because of the interaction between this new knowledge and my philosophy. Years ago it wouldn't have changed. Now it will. My philosophy has changed and my emotional reaction to some situations has changed accordingly. Not overnight, but over time. And this is not repression; it's an application of the Objectivist theory of how emotions work.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 38

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 6:59am

"You can claim that politics is a branch of ethics if you like. I don't agree, as I find that concept too forced because it excludes a faith/reason basis (epistemology), and I can find no reference at all to it in Rand's writings."

"The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system."

Ayn Rand (Philosophy Who Needs It - West Point Address)

And of course it doesn't exclude epistemology. Where did anyone say that or make that inference besides you? That really doesn't make any sense at all. It seems obvious to me that Rand's ethics is epistemologically grounded.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 2/09, 7:02am)

Post 39

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 7:11am