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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 10:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
=================
If the human soul had no being-at-work, no inherent and indelible activity, there could be no such moral stature, but only customs. But early on, when first trying to give content to the idea of happiness, Aristotle asks if it would make sense to think that a carpenter or shoemaker has work to do, but a human being as such is inert. His reply, of course, is that nature has given us work to do, in default of which we are necessarily unhappy, and that work is to put into action the power of reason. (1097b, 24-1098a, 4)

Note please that he does not say that everyone must be a philosopher, nor even that human life is constituted by the activity of reason, but that our work is to bring the power of logos forward into action. Later, Aristotle makes explicit that the irrational impulses are no less human than reasoning is. (1111 b, 1-2) His point is that, as human beings, our desires need not be mindless and random, but can be transformed by thinking into choices, that is desires informed by deliberation. (1113a, 11)

The characteristic human way of being-at-work is the threefold activity of seeing an end, thinking about means to it, and choosing an action. Responsible human action depends upon the combining of all the powers of the soul: perception, imagination, reasoning, and desiring. These are all things that are at work in us all the time. Good parental training does not produce them, or mold them, or alter them, but sets them free to be effective in action. This is the way in which, according to Aristotle, despite the contributions of parents, society, and nature, we are the co-authors of the active states of our own souls.
--http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-eth.htm
=================

=================
True happiness (eudaimonia) is an activity of the soul (psuchç) in accordance with complete virtue (aretç) in a complete life sufficiently equipped with internal and external goods.
--http://www.egr.uri.edu/ime/Faculty/Jones/egr316/eudaimonia.htm
=================

Ted, it is clear from these quotes (actually, my tacit acceptance of their truth), that we have different conceptions of "happiness." Having unshared fundamentals, we are unlikely to reach any kind of resolution on this matter. With that in mind, I will still go ahead and criticize your contribution to this thread -- for these 2 reasons ...

1) I love a mental challenge
2) To engage the minds of third-party viewers


Ted, you write ...
=================
First, ethics, unlike epistemology and metaphysics is not a primary, or prior to science, but is dependent upon the scientific exploration of human nature.
=================

While I agree that ethics is not a primary, but dependent on metaphysical facts and their logical integration -- I disagree with the notion that ethics is dependent on the findings of the special sciences. This is so because I adopt a normative view of ethics, as opposed to the "descriptive view of ethics" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics) that your quote implies.


You continue ...
=================
Human happiness, while differing both quantitatively and qualitatively from animals' is still a biological phenomenon mediated by the same brain structures and neurotransmitters as are found in the higher animals ...
=================

I'm not sure where you are going with this, Ted, by calling human happiness a biological (deals with living organisms and vital processes) phenomenon. And this business of reducing an experience so rich and vast as happiness down to the firing of some neurons or the release of some neurochemicals just seems to me to be reductive materialism (ie. something absurd) dressed up in scientific jargon.


You continue ...
=================
We share much more with animals than we differ from them.
=================

This statement begs the question. You see, it doesn't matter what the ultimate answer is -- whether when, every thing shared is added up and then compared to everything not, whether the shared outweighs the not-shared -- the question ought to be about whether something specific (a 'happiness capacity') is shared.


You continue ...
=================
I would define happiness in higher animals as spiritual flourishing, that is, mental health coupled with successful action.
=================

My problem with this definition is technical: You can't HAVE mental health without successful action -- and that's because of the kind of entity you are.


You continue ...
=================
There most certainly are happy and unhappy horses and dogs.
=================

This reminds me of a quote:
=================
"Did you ever see an unhappy horse? Did you ever see bird that had the blues? One reason why birds and horses are not unhappy is because they are not trying to impress other birds and horses."--Dale Carnegie
=================
;-)

Anyway, you're ascribing 'happiness/unhappiness' to the dogs and horses. This is merely the consequence of your different view of happiness. When looking at the same animals, I'd describe their attitudinal differences to things like temperament, or to contingencies related to how humans have treated them (note how humans introduce the Man-Made into the otherwise Metaphysical -- ie. wild -- life of animals).


You continue ...
=================
Second, higher animals, many mammals and birds especially, most emphatically do not live guided by instinct any more than humans do, as in suckling or sexual response. Wild animals must learn how to live as animals. This is why mammals raised from childhood by man must be carefully kept ... . If instinct were sufficient, animals raised by man could simply be dropped off in the woods and left to their own devices. This almost always ends in tragedy, with the animals starving ...
=================

The phenomenon that you are describing is a Man-Made phenomenon (rather than being a Metaphysical phenomenon, or 'fact' of nature -- if you will). It is an unnatural phenomenon. Instincts evolved to sustain animal life in the wild; for animals born in the wild, raised in the wild, etc. To use this unnatural contingency in order to infer that animals, necessarily, aren't more guided by instincts than humans -- is a fallacy. When every member of a wild-type species performs the same life actions -- then you can be sure that instinct (rather than free choice) is guiding their behavior. Here are some telling examples (from nhes.org) ...
=================
"Rabbits dig a system of complex underground burrows called a warren."
--Maybe not all species of rabbits build these warrens, but all members of the same species do -- and they're all built in the same way.

"The beaver builds its lodge in the pond. Only part of the lodge shows above the water. If you look at a lodge from shore, you won't see an entry into it. That's because all entrances lie underwater."
--Did you catch that? ALL entrances lie underwater. No exceptions. The reason? Because there's never been a dissenting beaver? No. It's because beavers aren't "choosing" to do things the way that they do, the way that they all do, the way that they all have always done.

"The squirrel is an energetic builder that may make two types of homes. A squirrel that finds a cavity in a tree will use it as a home. Old holes made by woodpeckers are common. But when suitable homes are not available, a squirrel builds a home called a dray. Here they are safe from most enemies.
The squirrel builds a dray in the fork of a tree where it can't be shaken loose by strong winds. The squirrel breaks off branches and drops them on the fork. On top of the branches it places twigs and leaves. The squirrel forms a round hollow in the center of the structure with an entrance on one side."
--Maybe not all species of squirrels build these drays, but all members of the same species do (at least those not finding tree holes) -- and they're all built in the same way.
=================

... so, bringing up the "mirror neuron" -- in order to fortify your case that higher animals aren't very much guided by instincts -- doesn't work. You see, the "learning" that animals are doing when they copy the behavior of other animals is merely "rote learning" (ie. automatic memorization). And memory is a perceptual faculty that integrates well with instinct (it requires no mental construct of a thinking, choosing animal).


You continue ...
=================
No one can find happiness by deducing it from formulas ...
=================

This reminds me of a formula:
=================
Desire + (Emotion / Reason) x (Imagination - Doubt) + (Action x Expectation) + Persistence = Happiness
--objectivehappiness.com
=================
;-)

Of course memorizing some formula isn't sufficient for building the kind of life and character that would entail the experience of human happiness. I'm not saying THAT. But the "acquisition of a few principles" is definitely a step in the right direction. Think of the absurd idea of acting WITHOUT principles. Man can't survive like THAT. Man is the kind of entity that survives by forming principles of action (rather than relying on instinct, backed up by some sharp fangs and claws).


You continue ...
=================
Happy horses prance ...
=================

But what about merely, transiently-excited horses, Ted? Don't they prance, too? How, pray-tell, could you differentiate happy horses from the merely excited ones? Do you equate happiness with mere excitement -- so that you wouldn't HAVE to differentiate and thus be more precise about your own conception of what it is that happiness is? Maybe the question is unfair, but your ascription of "some kind of happiness" to animals is just too vague to leave me comfortable.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 1/31, 10:17pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re the article's statement that:

Aristotle once said that a solitary miser cannot be happy -- because human happiness "requires" friendship. What was it that he was alluding to? Is there a fundamental human need to share values with another? In a word, yes. This is a human need (i.e. a necessity). It is not "optional" -- it is necessary (for human happiness) to find another being who shares similar values."

What would be the moral/practical implications of this, in a situation in which a person (who holds proper values) has no access to anyone, anywhere who also holds those values?

Example:

Suppose that a person born into a tribal society (and not knowing of any other society anywhere on the planet) comes to realize that tribalism is wrong.

Suppose also that this person's code of values (so far) differs in only one way from the tribe's code of values: the tribe's members value tribalism, this individual does not -- but the tribe's members (and this dissenting individual) share all other values: they all value honesty, they all value productive work, they all value friendship, they all value romantic love, etc.

Suppose further that this lone dissenter (the man or woman who realizes that the neighbors' values include only one wrong value -- tribalism -- among many other, good and indeed necessary values) tries hard, but fails completely, to persuade anyone else to reject tribalism. Since the dissenter cannot find anyone who shares this important value (of individualism over tribalism), the dissenter has no friends.

Does rational morality (necessarily including the rejection of tribalism) require this lone non-tribalist to leave the tribe (which means becoming a hermit because he can neither find another non-tribalist nor persuade any tribal person to become a non-tribalist and join him)?
Or would rational morality permit (I do not say "encourage") the dissenter to remain within the tribe (following tribal rituals, etc.) in the hopes of finding or creating some non-tribal individual, someday, so that he might someday have a friend?
(Note that the latter course might very strongly attract this lone non-tribalist: since he values friendship, and he has never had any. If the only way he can remain in any human society is to remain in a tribal society that is [except for being tribal] otherwise virtuous, is he justified in doing so? Or, if the only choice possible in his context is "be tribal or be a hermit," must he indeed choose to be a hermit?)

Post 22

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good question, Kate.

I don't think there's a "pat answer" to it. There are 2 things getting weighed (against one another) here:

1) the sheer volume of values (shared)
2) the objective hierarchy of those values

The highest value is enduring (living) happiness. All other values are values because they somehow relate to happy living. Individualism is really high up there in relation to happiness. There is a psychological theory (self-determination theory) which recognizes individualism as a basic (natural and inescapable) human need.

Full flourishing seems impossible for the man which you characterize.

If you think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, there is a value that fits every need. Food is the value that satisfies hunger, etc.

When you don't get the basic needs met, you die. When you get the basic needs, but not the safety and security needs, you live -- but you live in fear. When you get the basic needs and the safety and security needs, but you don't relate or bond well with others, then you live, with little fear -- but without a sense of belonging. Next is esteem, and then self-actualization.

It appears that the only way to flourish -- the only way for any human to flourish -- is to meet all 4 basic levels first.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/29, 12:02pm)


Post 23

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If I understand you, Ed, you conclude the proper position/decision for the man in my story would boil down to something like this:

"The only society I know about or can join -- an otherwise happy, rational productive bunch of people -- requires irrational tribal rituals in praise of the tribe's alleged deity. If I join in these irrational rituals, which require me to speak words I recognize as false, I am a liar and hypocrite -- if I do not join in, I am cast out from the only society accessible to me. A fully rational society is not accessible to me -- therefore, in order to meet or even approximate my need for life in society, proper to Man, I must spend at least part of my life as a liar and hypocrite. Reason -- when applied to the full context of my life -- requires me to speak falsehood and hypocrisy at certain times if I wish to live in the best [or the only] society available to me at all."

Does this fairly represent your conclusion in the case I imagined?
Or have I misunderstood you?



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 10:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kate I don't understand the point of your hypothetical. According to Objectivism, one should not just value mechanistic life for its own sake, rather one should value a eudaemonic existence, i.e. a flourishing life. You've created this hypothetical situation that is not only impossible to occur, but with no solution for one to pursue a flourishing life. How can an enlightened human being live an enriching life if he can only live among savages or himself? Is it reasonable to form philosophical principles in this manner? I think this certainly gives an interesting twist to the Kobayashi Maru test.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 4:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kate,

I agree with John that you've set up an impossible, arbitrary, no-win scenario (e.g. a "Kobayashi Maru" test) -- and that it is improper to use it in order to test or to form philosophical principles.

Still, in answer to your 2 questions, you did misunderstand me, by going ahead and forming a conclusion for me after I had admitted that there is no "pat answer" (i.e., no ready-made conclusion) to the situation as you had presented it. Instead of concluding what this man should actually do in this scenario, I merely spoke about what any man needs to do -- in order to experience happy living.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed you can always just change the conditions of the hypothetical. I'd you give a commendation for original thinking. :)



Post 27

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Ed, for clarifying that I'd misunderstood something.
"No-win scenarios" do occur, of course -- I'd cared to hear what you thought about the best way to survive happily in such a situation (which I presented, for clarity's sake, in an extreme form) when you can't escape it.

Post 28

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment?"

"Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power. In our power are thought, impulse, will to get and will to avoid, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing. Things in our power are by nature free, unhindered, untrammeled; things not in our power are weak, servile, subject to hindrance, dependent on others. Remember then that if you imagine that what is naturally slavish is free, and what is naturally another’s is your own, you will be hampered, you will mourn, you will be put to confusion, you will blame gods and men; but if you think that only your own belongs to you, and that what is another’s is indeed another’s, no one will ever put compulsion or hindrance on you, you will blame none, you will accuse none, you will do nothing against your will, no one will harm you, you will have no enemy, for no harm can touch you. "

Epictetus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Epictetus (Greek: Ἐπίκτητος; AD 55–AD 135) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was probably born a slave at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present day Pamukkale, Turkey), and lived in Rome until his exile to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece, where he lived most of his life and died. His teachings were noted down and published by his pupil Arrian in his Discourses. Philosophy, he taught, is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control, but we can accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. Individuals, however, are responsible for their own actions which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline. Suffering arises from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power. As part of the universal city that is the universe, human beings have a duty of care to all fellow humans. The person who followed these precepts would achieve happiness.

Epictetus was born c. 55 AD,[1] at Hierapolis, Phrygia.[2] The name given by his parents, if one was given, is not known—the word epiktetos in Greek simply means "acquired." He spent his youth as a slave in Rome to Epaphroditus, a very wealthy freedman of Nero. Epictetus studied Stoic philosophy under Musonius Rufus,[3] as a slave.[4] It is known that he became crippled, and although one source tells that his leg was deliberately broken by Epaphroditus,[5] more reliable is the testimony of Simplicius who tells us that he had been lame from childhood.[6]

It is not known how Epictetus obtained his freedom, but eventually he began to teach philosophy at Rome. Around 93 AD Domitian banished all philosophers from Rome, and ultimately, from Italy,[7] and Epictetus traveled to Nicopolis in Epirus, Greece, where he founded a philosophical school.[8]
His most famous pupil Arrian studied under him as a young man (c. 108 AD) and claims to have written the famous Discourses based on his lecture notes, although some scholars argue that they should rather be considered an original literary composition by Arrian comparable to the Socratic literature.[9] Arrian describes Epictetus as being a powerful speaker who could "induce his listener to feel just what Epictetus wanted him to feel."[10] Many eminent figures sought conversations with him,[11] and the Emperor Hadrian was friendly with him[12] and may have listened to him speak at his school in Nicopolis.[13][14]

He lived a life of great simplicity, with few possessions.[6] He lived alone for a long time,[15] but in his old age he adopted a friend's child who would otherwise have been left to die, and raised it with the aid of a woman to help him.[16] He died sometime around 135 AD.[17] After his death his lamp was purchased by an admirer for 3000 drachmae.[18]

So far as is known, Epictetus himself wrote nothing. All that remains of his work was transcribed by his pupil Arrian (author of the Anabasis Alexandri).[10] The main work is The Discourses, four books of which have been preserved (out of an original eight).[19] Arrian also compiled a popular digest, entitled the Enchiridion, or Handbook. In a preface to the Discourses, addressed to Lucius Gellius, Arrian states that "whatever I heard him say I used to write down, word for word, as best I could, endeavouring to preserve it as a memorial, for my own future use, of his way of thinking and the frankness of his speech."[10]

Epictetus focused more on ethics than the early Stoics. Repeatedly attributing his ideas to Socrates, he held that our aim was to be masters of our own lives. The role of the Stoic teacher, according to Epictetus, was to encourage his students to learn, first of all, the true nature of things, which is invariable, inviolable and valid for all human beings without exceptions.

The nature of things is further partitioned into two categories: those things that are subject to our exclusive power (prohairetic things) and those things that are not subject to our exclusive power (aprohairetic things). The first category of things includes judgment, impulse, desire, aversion, etc. The second category of things, which can also be called adiaphora, includes health, material wealth, fame, etc. Epictetus then introduced his students to two cardinal concepts: the concept of Prohairesis and the concept of Dihairesis. Prohairesis is what distinguishes humans from all other creatures. It is the faculty that, according to our own judgments, makes us desire or avert, feel impelled or repel, assent to or dissent about something. Epictetus repeatedly says that "we are our prohairesis." Dihairesis is the judgement that is performed by our Prohairesis, and that enables us to distinguish what is subject to our exclusive power from what is not subject to our exclusive power. Finally, Epictetus taught his students that good and evil exist only in our Prohairesis and never in external or aprohairetic things. The good student who thoroughly grasped these concepts and employed them in everyday life was prepared to live the philosophic life, whose objective was ataraxia (an undisturbed and serene state of mind). This meant fully understanding that we should not be affected by the external objects of our lives, because they are exclusively not up to us. This reasoning is in accordance with the knowledge of the true "nature of things," that is, the predetermined and complexly fixed order of the universe and the cosmos. Ataraxia was Epictetus', and the Stoics', ideal model of eudamonia, or "happiness and fulfillment."

From Brainy Quote (authenticity unverified)

All philosophy lies in two words, sustain and abstain.
Epictetus

Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant.
Epictetus

Control thy passions lest they take vengence on thee.
Epictetus

Difficulties are things that show a person what they are.
Epictetus

Do not laugh much or often or unrestrainedly.
Epictetus

Do not seek to bring things to pass in accordance with your wishes, but wish for them as they are, and you will find them.
Epictetus

First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak.
Epictetus

First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
Epictetus

Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire.
Epictetus

Freedom is the right to live as we wish.
Epictetus

God has entrusted me with myself.
Epictetus

He is a drunkard who takes more than three glasses though he be not drunk.
Epictetus

He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.
Epictetus

If evil be spoken of you and it be true, correct yourself, if it be a lie, laugh at it.
Epictetus

If one oversteps the bounds of moderation, the greatest pleasures cease to please.
Epictetus

If thy brother wrongs thee, remember not so much his wrong-doing, but more than ever that he is thy brother.
Epictetus

If virtue promises happiness, prosperity and peace, then progress in virtue is progress in each of these for to whatever point the perfection of anything brings us, progress is always an approach toward it.
Epictetus

If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.
Epictetus

If you seek truth you will not seek victory by dishonorable means, and if you find truth you will become invincible.

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
Epictetus

If you wish to be a writer, write.
Epictetus

Imagine for yourself a character, a model personality, whose example you determine to follow, in private as well as in public.
Epictetus

Is freedom anything else than the right to live as we wish? Nothing else.
Epictetus

It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.
Epictetus

It is not death or pain that is to be dreaded, but the fear of pain or death.
Epictetus

It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting.
Epictetus

It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures, but the foolish to be a slave to them.
Epictetus

It takes more than just a good looking body. You've got to have the heart and soul to go with it.
Epictetus

It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.
Epictetus

Keep silence for the most part, and speak only when you must, and then briefly.
Epictetus

Know, first, who you are, and then adorn yourself accordingly.
Epictetus

Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.
Epictetus

Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.
Epictetus

Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.
Epictetus

Never in any case say I have lost such a thing, but I have returned it. Is your child dead? It is a return. Is your wife dead? It is a return. Are you deprived of your estate? Is not this also a return?
Epictetus

No great thing is created suddenly.
Epictetus

No greater thing is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig, I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.
Epictetus

No man is free who is not master of himself.
Epictetus

Not every difficult and dangerous thing is suitable for training, but only that which is conducive to success in achieving the object of our effort.
Epictetus


Nothing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig. I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.
Epictetus

One that desires to excel should endeavor in those things that are in themselves most excellent.
Epictetus

Only the educated are free.
Epictetus

People are not disturbed by things, but by the view they take of them.
Epictetus

Practice yourself, for heaven's sake in little things, and then proceed to greater.
Epictetus

Silence is safer than speech.
Epictetus

The essence of philosophy is that a man should so live that his happiness shall depend as little as possible on external things.
Epictetus

The greater the difficulty the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests.
Epictetus

The key is to keep company only with people who uplift you, whose presence calls forth your best.
Epictetus

The two powers which in my opinion constitute a wise man are those of bearing and forbearing.
Epictetus

The world turns aside to let any man pass who knows where he is going.
Epictetus

There is nothing good or evil save in the will.
Epictetus

There is only one way to happiness and that is to cease worrying about things which are beyond the power of our will.
Epictetus

To accuse others for one's own misfortunes is a sign of want of education. To accuse oneself shows that one's education has begun. To accuse neither oneself nor others shows that one's education is complete.
Epictetus

Unless we place our religion and our treasure in the same thing, religion will always be sacrificed.
Epictetus

We are not to give credit to the many, who say that none ought to be educated but the free; but rather to the philosophers, who say that the well-educated alone are free.
Epictetus

We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.
Epictetus

We should not moor a ship with one anchor, or our life with one hope.
Epictetus

We tell lies, yet it is easy to show that lying is immoral.
Epictetus

Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants.
Epictetus

When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger.
Epictetus

Whenever you are angry, be assured that it is not only a present evil, but that you have increased a habit.
Epictetus

Whoever does not regard what he has as most ample wealth, is unhappy, though he be master of the world.
Epictetus

You are a little soul carrying around a corpse.
Epictetus

You may be always victorious if you will never enter into any contest where the issue does not wholly depend upon yourself.
Epictetus


Post 29

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I am sorry, Ed, but this new discovery with fruit bats shows that happiness is most certainly not limited to humans.

Resident furries, please don't get any ideas.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Admiral Gladstone:
You [pause, for effect], you think this test is unfair [sped up, for effect]?

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
I don't think that hypotheticals stipulating arbitrary limits on human cognition represent reality in any meaningful way.

Admiral Gladstone:
But I told you that you knew about the objective superiority of individualism over tribalism. You were human, and you knew.

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
But ... the others, Admiral. The others in my tribe. They're human, too -- yet you say I can't persuade them with reason.

Admiral Gladstone:
It's a possibility, you know, that everyone around you ...

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
Okay, you want to know what I would do, Admiral? I would do 2 things. I would live amongst them, but I would create an acceptable excuse for leaving them every once in a while.

Admiral Gladstone:
And what would you do on those "vacations" from them?

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
I would build and create. I would build an entire town. I would dedicate my life to it.

Admiral Gladstone:
And what good is a town with no one in it?

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
That leads to the second thing that I would do.

Admiral Gladstone:
And what is that?

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
Fornicate.

Admiral Gladstone:
Fornicate?! With whom?

Captain Ed D. Thompson:
With as many women as would be found acceptable in the tribe. And ... when the kids are growing up ... we'll have a little secret. At the right age, I will show them the town. I will tell them how I built it using my own reasoning mind. I will show them how they, themselves, can ...

Admiral Gladstone:
Congratulations, Captain. You have just passed the "Evreewonzanidiot Butyoo" test.

[that's how it went in my mind, at least]

Ed


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John and Ed agreed that Kate's scenario was impossible (or at least arbitrary) and shared some extent of thinking that it wasn't worthy of serious consideration.

I disagree.

If, through the ages, collectivism had the kind of monopoly over human culture that Rand asserts, individualism was likely held by lonely individuals in various places and times.  It is not likely to happen to any particular individual, but it is likely to have happened many times in history.

Also, it sounds a lot like the plots of dystopian fiction, namely... Anthem.

I'm applaud Ed for entertaining the question.  It's oddly common for O'ists to disregard hypotheticals quickly.  Which means they disregard imagination's role in refining moral principles.


Post 32

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Doug, I guess I don't understand how Kate's hypothetical has happened historically. Maybe you are reading into her hypothetical in a way that I'm not. But even still, if it has, it's not an example that is particularly useful in a philosophical discussion. It would be like asking would you rather die drowning or have your head cut off. What is the point to a question like that where either choice leads to the same outcome, effectively making the choice a moot point. Morality is about making choices to sustain or further a value, in Kate's hypothetical, there is no choice possible for this. It is not a situation where you could apply a meaningful moral analysis.

As far as your criticisms of O'ists dismissing hypotheticals too quickly, did it occur to you maybe there's a good reason for it? An unrestrained imagination, coming up with an arbitrary set of conditions is not something that is connected to reality. It's not a matter of dealing with unimaginative folks, it's rather dealing with people that prefer to stick with reality. If you think it's useful to come up with any arbitrary conditions for a hypothetical, and then attempt to apply philosophical principles that were arrived at through careful deliberation and observation of reality, then I would ask what does philosophy mean to you?

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Friday, October 30, 2009 - 9:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Doug (and John),

I actually do think that there is a subtle moral to the story here, though it doesn't weigh heavily against anything in Objectivism. It is to step back one level and apply the principles of the "Gladstone Dilemma" to your own life.

When I do this in my life, I recognize a similarity between the predicament of this Tribal Lone Wolf and myself. My guess is that everyone could, upon introspection, recognize a similarity. It is the reason why the following horoscope "works" (as a horoscope for everyone):

You feel that there is so much to you that other people just don't see.
Everyone, I believe, can agree with this. Having the privileged access to their own thoughts and minds, folks will get the existential angst of a feeling of separation from others. It is also what NeoCon and NeoLib mystics promote for their own gain -- a nameless, faceless connection to other people. The crusted nationalism of the NeoCon and the illegitimate spiritualism of the NeoLib are what they are because of what the human psyche is like.

These politicians are merely gaming the system.

Getting back to me again, I have entered into two "organizations" where folks don't seem to measure-up to my above-average level of moral perfection. I have also had somewhat of a difficult time at extended-family BBQ's. In either case, I have learned to live with being not very psychologically and philosophically visible to these peers of mine. I pick my battles and take my lumps. The alternative, at this point in my life, is the greater evil.

Now, the rationalist will maintain that what Roark said, he meant, and without exception. No one gets "granted" even one minute of your time.

However, this literal interpretation of Roark's words in that courtroom is being misused via the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization. Holding context is important. If everyone had to be at Roark's level before Roark would spend any time with them -- well then Roark would never have the opportunity to lift or motivate anyone else up to his level. If there were someone even morally higher than Roark was, then this person wouldn't have anything to do with Roark (in order to lift or motivate him up).

It's like saying that you won't get into the water until you've learned to swim.

David Kelley, in Unrugged Individualism, wrote about investing your time, energy, and expertise into other people. He qualified this investment by saying that you should only do so for people whom you deem worthy (reviving the old: "Don't throw pearls to swine" logic). There is a flip-side to the argument, too. Don't reject pearls from swine. What I mean by that is that there are some great things that other people can do for you, life-enriching things, even if they are your intellectual, psychological, philosophical, or merely moral inferiors.

At the risk of sounding easy-squeezy-lemon-peezy, everyone is on their own journey. Forget about the ones walking the wrong way, but don't disregard those walking in the right direction, even though they may not have travelled as far or fast as you have or you can. Life will be better for you if you invest in others (rather than being a total "spiritual miser"). That's the take-away message I get from the Gladstone Dilemma.

Ed
[has tried the "spiritual miser" thing and found it wanting]

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/30, 9:43pm)


Post 34

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 1:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, in Post 33, got my point (and expressed it better than I would have known how to do). I've sanctioned that message and a few others in this thread.

Post 35

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 3:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for the praise, Kate.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed, I do agree essentially with your post 33. One should not expect to interact with another person that meets some kind of a Platonic ideal. You will never run into anyone else that understands you perfectly, but that is not a reasonable standard for initiating interactions with other people. There are plenty of instances where an exchange of ideas can be fruitful, even though that person may not relate to you on every single level. And when you are able to establish these connections, they will add up to a more enriching life. So the excuse that no one understands you perfectly and thus I should withdraw from society is a poor one, as it sets up an unreasonable standard for the pursuit of happiness. I took Kate's hypothetical to have the condition this possibility of relating to anyone on any level was ruled out. That you would be in a position that you couldn't connect with anyone else in any way because no one would want to or were receptive to any of the ideas you came up with. It's hard to find something this extreme ever in the course of human history, since populations with that kind of culture would have quickly died out, and we would have never heard of such an historical figure since he would have no ability to have left an imprint of his work or ideas in the annals of history.

To give an example of this, it seems that Western culture has become so predominant in the world precisely because it had within it the value of the free exchange of ideas. Starting with the Ancient Greeks, they did not have the attitude that they could never learn from any other cultures, in fact it was just the opposite, as many famous ancient Greeks from Solon to Lycurgus to Alexander adopted many ideas found in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Even the Greek alphabet was borrowed from Phoenicia. This cultural trend of taking foreign ideas that were observed to be beneficial carried on through out most of Western history. Contrast that with the culture of China for example, where emperor Hongxi ordered the destruction of what was the world's most massive naval fleet, ordered all records of naval expeditions to be burned and turned China inward. At that time China had a fleet that dwarfed the size of the Spanish Armada.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

As far the as the historical point goes, each time the landmark conceptual discovery of individualism was discovered by an individual, it had to be in the midst of a collectivist culture.  There not only had to be an ultimate first, but were likely many firsts for various communities/cultures/ages.  Each first would have had some issue dealing with an entirely collective culture.  That's all I mean.

I see your point that some people might take a bizarre hypothetical, establish some truth within it, and assume that truth must fit with everyday reality.  But I think you can learn something applicable to this life by contrasting this with another.

Critics of objective value have often invented creatures to test the universal nature of value.  But we don't have to invent a creature to get to the same point.  Let's say a given person derives satisfaction from color arrangements in fashion and art.  Is this satisfaction (merely) subjective because there exists a colorblind person who enjoys no such thing?  Many have sloppily taken this argument to the conclusion that value is subjective.  But this example, which has nothing to do with your consciousness, directs you to the fact that value depends on the objective nature of an entity and its environment.

I suppose if you can keep in mind what contextual elements are changed in a hypothetical, you can answer it fully, and at the same time bridge it into reality by saying, "that's why it would be true under those conditions, this is why it isn't in ours."

What do you think?


Post 38

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Doug I think that's a fair assessment and I sanctioned your post. It seems that philosophical ideas are the slowest ones to gain wider acceptance, whereas things like technological inventions on the other hand are quickly adopted by others as the evidence of it's usefulness to humans is more apparent, on the other hand something that is abstract and not as quickly observed as being concretely beneficial like a philosophical principle takes more time to adopt. But even still, there has to be someone willing to listen to these ideas in a previously collectivist culture for it to eventually take hold in them. It's an interesting question as to why or how it happens, but we know for it to happen it must be possible for some person to be willing to listen. And I believe cultures that respected individualism more than others were more successful and survived longer than ones that were more collectivist in nature.

Post 39

Sunday, November 1, 2009 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I suspect you're right about that, John.  Thank you for the sanction.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.