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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 4:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“Free will” is necessary for morality. One can’t be held morally responsible for something over which he or she had no choice. And, Objectivists claim to believe in free will, as do Christians. Christians offer us this story about how Adam disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and ate a fruit from the tree of knowledge. After that, he had knowledge of good and evil and the freedom to choose between the two. This gave him the capacity to sin, to make wrong choices. Well, how did Adam know eating the fruit was wrong if he didn’t have knowledge of right and wrong before he ate the fruit? Sure, God told him not to eat the fruit, but he wouldn’t have known that disobeying God would be a sin before he had the knowledge of what sin was. (Besides, if this was God’s plan, to give people freedom so that they would come to Him of their own free will, then Adam really didn’t go against God’s will. God wanted him to sin. And, as Ayn Rand said, holding all mankind responsible for the sin of Adam, something that happened long before we were born, is a sin against justice and fairness etc.)

 

Anyhow, back to the subject, Objectivism has a problem with “free will” similar to the problem of Adam not knowing about sin until after he ate the apple. Objectivists maintain that man’s “free will” is his mind’s freedom to think or not. Man is a being of volitional consciousness, and reason does not work automatically. Man must choose to use reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. To think or not is the choice to focus or not. However, if man’s initial choice is to focus, to think, to use reason, what guides that initial choice? He isn’t focused or using reason until after he chooses to be focused or using reason. Is that first choice guided by something other than reason?

 

Well Rand does talk about the sense of life and some pre-conceptual ways of choosing, and she and Nathaniel Branden talked about concept formation in children as they are becoming conceptual. She also alludes to man’s nature as man, that it is his nature to choose reason. However, I think the problem still remains. If man is bound by his nature and the causation of natural laws, then how is that initial choice free. Branden does talk about how it is a prime mover, a first cause. Does he prove it? When theists used first cause arguments to prove the existence of God, Schopenhauer said they were using sufficient reason as a taxi to get to their location and then getting out. It is not fair to say that everything has a cause except God, that he is an exception to the rule somehow. Is man an exception to the rule?  (I think he is, and I have a long explanation, using Existentialism, linguistics, and Chomsky’s creativity principle. However, I’d like to see how Objectivists on this forum deal with this.)

 

What does it mean, anyway, to use reason and that reasonable people don’t disagree. If my fried gets into an airplane which crashes over the ocean and I don’t hear from him for a long time, it is reasonable for me to assume that he is dead. However, as he is bouncing around in the ocean, it is reasonable for him to believe he is still alive. We are both being reasonable, but we reach different conclusions. One believes A, and the other believes not A.

 

Another problem with using reason is that it doesn’t reach everywhere. If there are two or more alternatives which, when measured and weighed on the egoistic utilitarian scale, have exactly equal advantages and disadvantages, then what guides the choice? Reason won’t help. It also won’t help if we do not have enough information on which to apply reason. The older we get and the more involved with life we get, the more we find ourselves in this situation. A systematic philosophy which tells us to use reason won’t help us much.

 

Okay, this has been fun. I‘m presenting this board with several problems: 1. What guides one’s choice to use reason before one has made the choice to use reason?   2. Was Rand wrong when she said, through her characters, that there can be no disagreement among reasonable men, considering the example above? 3. What do we use when the choice is really free, when reason is inadequate or can’t be applied?  I look forward to some lively but reasoned discussion on these questions.

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick

 

    


Post 1

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, please take Dean's advice (Theory of Value thread) and consolidate points or posts.

I, like you, started out posting here like that -- until someone took the trouble to point out to me that my post was more than 3000 words long. Now, I had been -- somewhat naively and perhaps a little bit narcissistically -- thinking that, if the 3000 words I wrote were enough to continually engage MY MIND, then these 3000 words will likely keep other minds engaged, too. I was wrong about that -- and so are you.

Now, to your 3 questions ...

====================
1. What guides one’s choice to use reason before one has made the choice to use reason?
====================

Pleasure and pain. Think of a toddler that likes to run around the house, chasing the dog (or being chased by the dog). Picture a kitchen table that has an edge at a specific height, so that it is aligned with the toddler's forehead. Now picture the inevitable. Boom. The kid goes down, wailing in unexpected agony.

After awhile, at the beckon of the dog, the kid gets up to chase again -- only this time, every time he runs past the table, he -- even exaggeratingly -- ducks or pulls his head far away from the edge. If there was enough pain associated with this previous ignorance of geometry and spatial relations, then one of these learning sessions may be all that is ever needed.



====================
2. Was Rand wrong when she said, through her characters, that there can be no disagreement among reasonable men, considering the example above?
====================

Michael Dickey (in the Capitalism thread) said it well when he said ...

===============
So while rational men may still disagree, they should not have any conflicts of interest.
===============

And what he meant was that -- because we're all working with different information sets -- that tentative disagreements will pop up. But, because we have similar natures and needs, and trade to mutual benefit is superior to all alternatives -- we don't really have conflicts of interest, or ends (just conflicts of means to these same ends).



====================
3. What do we use when the choice is really free, when reason is inadequate or can’t be applied?
====================

What you mean here seems to be a "choice without a reason to choose" -- but this existentialist concept is, itself, without meaning (unless it's tantamount to a dog's "choice" to sit or stand -- at any given moment in time).

There is not ever a time when reason can't be applied (except for those bodily reactions that are automatic, such as the knee-jerk reflex).

Ed


Post 2

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 3:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Ed)Nick, please take Dean's advice (Theory of Value thread) and consolidate points or posts.

I, like you, started out posting here like that -- until someone took the trouble to point out to me that my post was more than 3000 words long. Now, I had been -- somewhat naively and perhaps a little bit narcissistically -- thinking that, if the 3000 words I wrote were enough to continually engage MY MIND, then these 3000 words will likely keep other minds engaged, too. I was wrong about that -- and so are you.

(Nick)This particular post is short and pretty well orgasnzed. It shouldn't be hard to read at all. I agree that my a few of my other posts are long and unconventionally written. Never-the-less, they should engage those who are interested. I don't always live to please other people.

(Ed)Pleasure and pain. Think of a toddler that likes to run around the house, chasing the dog (or being chased by the dog). Picture a kitchen table that has an edge at a specific height, so that it is aligned with the toddler's forehead. Now picture the inevitable. Boom. The kid goes down, wailing in unexpected agony.

After awhile, at the beckon of the dog, the kid gets up to chase again -- only this time, every time he runs past the table, he -- even exaggeratingly -- ducks or pulls his head far away from the edge. If there was enough pain associated with this previous ignorance of geometry and spatial relations, then one of these learning sessions may be all that is ever needed.

(Nick)So, the kid is getting trained, like a Pavlovian dog or a Skinnerian rat? When does free will and reason come into play? Is it just a more sophsticated programming than what the non-rational animals get?

(Ed)And what he meant was that -- because we're all working with different information sets -- that tentative disagreements will pop up. But, because we have similar natures and needs, and trade to mutual benefit is superior to all alternatives -- we don't really have conflicts of interest, or ends (just conflicts of means to these same ends).

(Nick)I like this answer. I see how using different premises and dfferent information can lead to different conclusions among equally rational people. However, if they are working with he same information and same premises, then they should have no disagreements about the rational conclusions. It's like working out the same mathematical problem. They should have the same answer.

(Ed)What you mean here seems to be a "choice without a reason to choose" -- but this existentialist concept is, itself, without meaning (unless it's tantamount to a dog's "choice" to sit or stand -- at any given moment in time).

There is not ever a time when reason can't be applied (except for those bodily reactions that are automatic, such as the knee-jerk reflex).

(Nick)I beg to differ. I've been in situations many times in my lfe where no amount of reason would help me with my decision. I just had to do something or not, and even no decision would be a decision. Sartre said we are forced to be free. There are postive/negative decisions where reason can be appled. It woudn't be reasonable to choose the negative. However, there are also positve/positive or negative/negative decsions, where reason doesn't help. Or, there are situations where we just don't know what the consequences will be. We have to take a shot in the dark. These are not reflexive choices. We sometimes agonize over them. They are baseless choices, choices which make a difference in who we are, if we are what we do. We may be standing in an open field and decding which way to go or to continue standing. Don't say there is not ever a time when reason can't be applied. If t can be, then the choice is not really free, uncoerced. It is like the Christian idea of freedom that you can either obey God or go to Hell. You either choose reason or be immoral. Reason is the new God. 

bis bald,

Nick
 





Post 3

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nick)I like this answer. I see how using different premises and dfferent information can lead to different conclusions among equally rational people. However, if they are working with he same information and same premises, then they should have no disagreements about the rational conclusions. It's like working out the same mathematical problem. They should have the same answer.


No - because they are two individuals, not two peas in a pod, so there be differences between them which would make for a non-equalness in conclusions...


Post 4

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 7:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No - because they are two individuals, not two peas in a pod, so there be differences between them which would make for a non-equalness in conclusions...


Still, if they are both rational, of equal intellegence and ability, and work on the same mathematical problem, they should get the same answer. If they don't, then either one of them is wrong or "rational" doesn't mean anything. Mathematical and logical truths cannot be relative. It is not the case that 2+2 equals 4 for some people but 5 for others but everyone is equally rational.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 5

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,

=================
(Ed) After awhile, at the beckon of the dog, the kid gets up to chase again -- only this time, every time he runs past the table, he -- even exaggeratingly -- ducks or pulls his head far away from the edge. If there was enough pain associated with this previous ignorance of geometry and spatial relations, then one of these learning sessions may be all that is ever needed.

(Nick) So, the kid is getting trained, like a Pavlovian dog or a Skinnerian rat? When does free will and reason come into play? Is it just a more sophsticated programming than what the non-rational animals get?
=================

Pavlovian dogs learn via repetition (rote memorization). If you take a more generous look to understand what it is that I actually wrote -- then you will see that repetition was not needed (because an adequate understanding was achieved within a single experience). That is the difference between dog and man.



=================
Don't say there is not ever a time when reason can't be applied. If t can be, then the choice is not really free, uncoerced. It is like the Christian idea of freedom that you can either obey God or go to Hell. You either choose reason or be immoral. Reason is the new God.
=================

Firstly, reason is a tool of persuasion -- not coercion. And don't you ever forget that. The point is too important ("Reason is the only OBJECTIVE means of communication and of understanding among men ..." --Rand, PWNI).

And also, in a sense, it is true that reason is the new God.
In days of old, folks looked to God for guidance through reality. Now, we have a different guide ("Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival."--CUI, 16).

Ed

Post 6

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Ed)Pavlovian dogs learn via repetition (rote memorization). If you take a more generous look to understand what it is that I actually wrote -- then you will see that repetition was not needed (because an adequate understanding was achieved within a single experience). That is the difference between dog and man.

 

(Nick)No, it is still carrot and stick type training, and some kids need more than a single experience to learn something. Ask parents and teachers. And, if this is the only difference between dog and man, it doesn’t show volitional choice and reasoning. At most, it only shows that humans may be easier to train than dogs.

 

(Ed)Firstly, reason is a tool of persuasion -- not coercion. And don't you ever forget that. The point is too important ("Reason is the only OBJECTIVE means of communication and of understanding among men ..." --Rand, PWNI).

 

(Nick)This does not address my point that reason cannot be applied to all situations. Are you evading me?

 

(Ed)And also, in a sense, it is true that reason is the new God.
In days of old, folks looked to God for guidance through reality. Now, we have a different guide ("Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival."--CUI, 16).

 

(Nick)If reason is a tool, it is something we control. It does not control us. We ought not subjugate ourselves to it as some would subjugate themselves to God.

 

 

bis bald,

 

Nick


Post 7

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,


====================
(Nick)No, it is still carrot and stick type training, and some kids need more than a single experience to learn something.
====================

While it's true that some kids -- and some adults, even -- need more than a single experience, at times, you miss my point (humans can understand, rather than merely memorize, which is all that animals ever do).



====================
(Nick)This does not address my point that reason cannot be applied to all situations. Are you evading me?
====================

Yeah Nick, I'm evading you. Because I feel that there can be a value to evading you -- in front of hundreds of onlookers, onlookers who will then identify myself with this kind of 'duplicity'. Yeah, I feel that this 'noted duplicity' will (somehow) be inconsequential to my further dealings with them. And that I won't lose out (somehow).

;-)

And now, back to reality. You conjecture that reason isn't always helpful (ie. that, sometimes, it's inconsequential). I retort that reason is man's means of knowing -- and that knowing is never unhelpful.



=====================
(Nick)If reason is a tool, it is something we control. It does not control us. We ought not subjugate ourselves to it as some would subjugate themselves to God.
=====================

Yeah. We ought not "subjugate" ourselves to our only means of knowing reality. Right. Got it. What an existentialist gem!

;-)

Ed






Post 8

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Ed)While it's true that some kids -- and some adults, even -- need more than a single experience, at times, you miss my point (humans can understand, rather than merely memorize, which is all that animals ever do).

 

(Nick)You have to prove this, not merely assert it.

 

(Ed)And now, back to reality. You conjecture that reason isn't always helpful (ie. that, sometimes, it's inconsequential). I retort that reason is man's means of knowing -- and that knowing is never unhelpful.

 

(Nick)Again, how is reason helpful in making a decision when alternatives are equal or unknown? When you are standing in the middle of an open field with no guide posts, how do you use reason to decide which direction to take or to remain still?

 

(Ed)Yeah. We ought not "subjugate" ourselves to our only means of knowing reality. Right. Got it. What an existentialist gem!

 

(Nick)Is reason a tool or not? Do you use your tools or let them use you?

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,

==================
(Ed)While it's true that some kids -- and some adults, even -- need more than a single experience, at times, you miss my point (humans can understand, rather than merely memorize, which is all that animals ever do).

(Nick)You have to prove this, not merely assert it.
==================

Now you're being unreasonable (setting it up so that I am called on to prove a negative). No one is called on to do that. Are you prepared to make the positive assertion of conceptual awareness in animals? Are you? Because that is what is required -- in the previous and heretofore absence of any positive evidence of a point.

If something's never been the case, then, in order to stake claim to it's truth, you have to marshal a positive instance of that which has not ever been the case before. That's what being reasonable is.



==================
(Ed)And now, back to reality. You conjecture that reason isn't always helpful (ie. that, sometimes, it's inconsequential). I retort that reason is man's means of knowing -- and that knowing is never unhelpful.

(Nick)Again, how is reason helpful in making a decision when alternatives are equal or unknown?
==================

Making a true (ie. deliberative) "choice" among equal or "unknown" alternatives -- is absurd. "Choices" made among equal or "unknown" alternatives -- are properly conceptually categorized as whims. And, while reason is not helpful in making whimsical choice -- this is because reason was precluded a priori from the issue (due to the conceptual exclusion of what it is that can classify as a whim; ruling out reason from the get-go).



==================
(Nick)Is reason a tool or not? Do you use your tools or let them use you?
==================

Of course reason is a tool, and tools are that which are used by man. What you are saying is -- if you had a desire that was contrary to reason (one that would make you, on net, less happy) -- then, in that instance, reason must be tossed out. But that is absurd.

Existentialist crap.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 7/09, 5:04pm)


Post 10

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Ed)Now you're being unreasonable (setting it up so that I am called on to prove a negative). No one is called on to do that. Are you prepared to make the positive assertion of conceptual awareness in animals? Are you? Because that is what is required -- in the previous and heretofore absence of any positive evidence of a point.

If something's never been the case, then, in order to stake claim to it's truth, you have to marshal a positive instance of that which has not ever been the case before. That's what being reasonable is.

 

(Nick)I first asked the question of what guided a human’s initial choice to use reason. You gave me the example of a child learning from experience. I noted that animals, non-rational creatures, can be trained in the same way. You claim that children are using reason in their learning while animals are not. I ask you to prove it, and you accuse me of trying to make you prove a negative. Behaviorists claim that there is no difference. Can you refute them?

 

(Ed) Making a true (ie. deliberative) "choice" among equal or "unknown" alternatives -- is absurd. "Choices" made among equal or "unknown" alternatives -- are properly conceptually categorized as whims. And, while reason is not helpful in making whimsical choice -- this is because reason was precluded a priori from the issue (due to the conceptual exclusion of what it is that can classify as a whim; ruling out reason from the get-go).

 

(Nick)No, whims are not agonized over and committed to once made, leading on to other life changing choices. The decisions I’m referring to are the truly free decisions, the ones we make without any life lines. Simply taking a logical path is not making a free choice.

 

(Ed)Of course reason is a tool, and tools are that which are used by man. What you are saying is -- if you had a desire that was contrary to reason (one that would make you, on net, less happy) -- then, in that instance, reason must be tossed out. But that is absurd.

Existentialist crap.

 

(Nick)No, Ed. Sometimes, reason does not reach, like I said above. Sometimes we cannot wait around until we have enough knowledge on which to apply reason. We have to take chances. And, sometimes we may choose to take the road less traveled by, live a little dangerously. Being safe all the time is boring. It’s exciting sometimes to boldly go where no man has gone before. But, if we choose to use reason, it is our choice. We are not slaves to it. Read Prufrock and Henley.

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick


Post 11

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick,

=================
You claim that children are using reason in their learning while animals are not. I ask you to prove it, and you accuse me of trying to make you prove a negative. Behaviorists claim that there is no difference. Can you refute them?
=================

Oh, sorry (miscommunication)! I thought that you had meant for me to prove to you that no animal has ever reasoned -- and not that humans DO reason. As for the refutation of Behaviorism -- see Edwin A. Locke, "Behaviorism and Psychoanalysis" The Objectivist Forum, Feb. 1980, p 10.



=================
(Nick)No, whims are not agonized over and committed to once made, leading on to other life changing choices. The decisions I’m referring to are the truly free decisions, the ones we make without any life lines.
=================

Got any examples? I'm thinking of one now. There she was, at the other side of the bar -- her hair half-dangling in her face. A song came on and you knew she liked it because of the way her body started to move upon hearing the beat. Others were making their way to the dance floor -- and she turns her head, and catches your eye ...

Whoa, that's a little uncomfortable to write about (ie. those times when no logical formula SEEMED to exist in order to underpin a viable action plan). Anyway, is THIS what you mean, Nick?



=================
Simply taking a logical path is not making a free choice.
=================

Curiosity: Would it be a "free choice" to choose NOT TO take the "logical path?"



=================
It’s exciting sometimes to boldly go where no man has gone before. But, if we choose to use reason, it is our choice.
=================

Nick, here's the kicker: Reason isn't pure risk-minimization. These aspects of humanity you mention (that cause excitement) have to be integrated by reason INTO your life.

You're disavowing the personability of reason (making it out to be a cold, calculating dictaphone). It's wrong to think of human reason like that. Reason is how we properly find out when it would be a good time to take chances.

Ed


Post 12

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 9:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Ed)Got any examples? I'm thinking of one now. There she was, at the other side of the bar -- her hair half-dangling in her face. A song came on and you knew she liked it because of the way her body started to move upon hearing the beat. Others were making their way to the dance floor -- and she turns her head, and catches your eye ...

Whoa, that's a little uncomfortable to write about (ie. those times when no logical formula SEEMED to exist in order to underpin a viable action plan). Anyway, is THIS what you mean, Nick?

(Nick)Well, I think that's a positive/negative decision, if you are not already committed to another. It would be different if there were two equally attractive women there. Which one would you ask to dance? Can you apply game theory to that? Even more uncomfortable to think about s the negative/negative decison. If you are up to your neck in $hit and someone dumps a bucket of snot on you, would you duck? ;)

(Ed)Nick, here's the kicker: Reason isn't pure risk-minimization. These aspects of humanity you mention (that cause excitement) have to be integrated by reason INTO your life.

You're disavowing the personability of reason (making it out to be a cold, calculating dictaphone). It's wrong to think of human reason like that. Reason is how we properly find out when it would be a good time to take chances.

(Nick)This sounds like Spock in an episode of Star Trek. He made a desperate attempt to be saved by burning off all the fuel in the shuttle craft so that the main craft would see him and beam him up before he ran out of life support. When Kirk and the crew kidded him about it afterwards, in the denoument of the episode, he said that it was a logical choice for him to make a desperate move.

bis bald,

Nick



Post 13

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The other element Reason helps with is similar, but different situations.  The same child may now see some other object, which animals do not do, and see that here, too, they need to move more carefully.  That is where reason comes in, it acts as a tool to analyze the future.  Ed was just coming up with some of the ways it gets "started" so to speak.  It is well detailed in Intro to Obj Epistemology and the like.

Also - we don't yet have all the answers on the true nature of consciosness any more than a scientist in 1800 knew about atomic physics, but he was not wrong in thinking that the scientific method could yield us that at some point in the future.

Animals are on a consciousness scale lower than humans (we are a big "leap" as it were).  There are elements in common, just as there are with our physical bodies, though humans have unique elements never developed by animals.

(Edited by Kurt Eichert on 7/10, 10:09am)


Post 14

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Kurt)The other element Reason helps with is similar, but different situations.  The same child may now see some other object, which animals do not do, and see that here, too, they need to move more carefully.  That is where reason comes in, it acts as a tool to analyze the future.  Ed was just coming up with some of the ways it gets "started" so to speak.  It is well detailed in Intro to Obj Epistemology and the like

(Nick)Do you think the question of what guides the initial choice to use reason has been answered? Does the child already have reason he didn't have to choose?

(Kurt)Animals are on a consciousness scale lower than humans (we are a big "leap" as it were).  There are elements in common, just as there are with our physical bodies, though humans have unique elements never developed by animals.

(Nick)Do you think it is a slide from a lower scale to a higher one, or do you think there is a break, a difference in kind rather than degree, from animals to humans?

I think our language makes us unique among animals. We volitionally manipulate symbols in a structured form. It allows us to think conceptually, with words and sentences. Animals make meaningful sounds but no structure is detected. Experiments with apes using sign language is still inconclusive, so human-like language seems to make humans unique, different in kind and not just degree, from other animals. And, Chomsky has a creativty principle which demonstrates how humans can make meaningful sentences which have never been made or experienced before. We have substitution frames in our language into which we can place words and form meaningful patterns which have never before been formed. This is the key to free will. It allows us to invent things which bring about industrial revolutions and effect our lifestyles in ways that other animals don't do. They are bound by their natures, like objects, but we humans are the subjects, the animals who create and use reason, if we choose to do so.

bis bald,

Nick



Post 15

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1)  I have to think more about your question re/start of reason.  I am not sure there is one.  Yes it is an innate ability but take walking, for example - it is "innate" yet must be learned.  It takes effort - same with reasoning.  It flows upward from the simplest processes - food, safetly, etc... to more and more complexity.  So it is always "there" but grows based on the environment - in fact my answer is that it is "started" by the existence of the environment and the challenges that exist there.  However, it is unlike "instincts" in that it is much more powerful, yet flexible and self-directed.

2)  I agree with most of what you say re/animals.  Jury is still out, but of the ones we know of that exist now, there is/are definitive leaps represented by humanity. Even pre-humanity had leaps, and even Homo Sapiens had leaps - for instance I saw recently that art itself, drawing, was one such "leap" that took place very recently in comparison.


Post 16

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the questions Rand addresses in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (p. 154) is the following: "Is the choice to focus a rational choice?" She replies,
No, it's a primary choice--that is, you won't be rational if your mind isn't focused. But conversely, once you've acquired the rudiments of reason, you focus your mind consciously and volitionally. But how do you learn to focus it originally? In the same way an infant learns to focus his eyes. He is not born with his eyes in focus; focusing his eyes is an acquired attribute, though it's done automatically. (I'm not sure whether it's entirely automatic; but from what we can observe, no volition on the infant's part is necessary.) Why does he learn to focus them? Because he's trying to see--to perceive. Similarly, an infant or young child learns to focus his mind in the form of wanting to know something--to understand clearly. That is the beginning from which a fully conscious, rational focus comes. [This was in answer to a question asked at her lecture, "A Nation's Unity," at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston in 1972.]
I'm having some difficulty with her reply. I would have thought the questioner was asking if the choice to focus were something that could be viewed as rational (i.e., as a choice that is rationally desirable and for which one is morally responsible). This is certainly the impression one gets from Branden's articles on "The Objectivist Theory of Volition," which appeared originally in the February 1966 issue of The Objectivist, in which he writes:
Man's freedom to focus or not to focus, to think or not to think, is a unique kind of choice that must be distinguished from any other category of choice.

It must be distinguished from the decision to think about a particular subject: what a man thinks about, in any given case, depends on his values, interests, knowledge and context. It must be distinguished from the decision to think about a particular physical action, which again depends on a man's values, interests, knowledge and context. These decisions involve causal antecedents of a kind which the choice to focus does not.

The primary choice to focus, to set one's mind to the purpose of cognitive integration, is a first cause in a man's consciousness. On the psychological level, this choice is causally irreducible; it is the highest regulator in the mental system; it is subject to man's direct, volitional control. In relation to it, all other choices and decisions are regulators.

...Just as a man cannot escape the implicit knowledge that the function of his mind is volitional, so he cannot escape the implicit knowledge that he should think, that to be conscious is desirable, that his efficacy as a living entity depends on it.
So, when Rand replies to the question, "Is the choice to focus a rational choice?" by answering, "No, it's a primary choice--that is, you won't be rational if your mind isn't focused," she implies that it is not a choice that can be viewed as rational (i.e., as rationally desirable) from the perspective of the person facing it. Observe that Branden also refers to it as a "primary" choice, by which he means a "first cause in man's consciousness." He does not, however, suggest that it is not a rational choice. On the contrary, he writes that a person "cannot escape the implicit knowledge that he should think, that to be conscious is desirable..." The answer to this paradox might seem to lie in the term "implicit knowledge." However, to say that one "knows" that one should think, that to be conscious is desirable, implies rationality, however "implicit" one's knowledge; otherwise there can be no rational meaning to the terms "should" or "desirable," which are normative terms implying a rational standard of value.

Also, observe the paradox between Rand's remarks at the start of her answer, in which she says that the choice to focus is not a rational choice, and her remarks at the end of her answer, in which she says, "That is the beginning from which a fully conscious, rational focus comes." (emphasis added) Whether this is a contradiction or simply an ambiguity in her explanation depends on what she means by "a fully conscious rational focus." If she means "a fully conscious rational choice to focus," then it is a contradiction. Unfortunately, I suspect that she may indeed have meant it in this sense, for she states that "once you've acquired the rudiments of reason, you focus your mind consciously and volitionally"--which is to say, consciously and rationally); otherwise, of what relevance is the phrase, "once you've acquired the rudiments of reason"?

Does anyone else have a different take on this? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation. Unlike some of the posters on this forum, my purpose is not to discredit Rand or to depict her as having "feet of clay," but to evaluate her philosophy honestly and objectively.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/11, 10:29am)


Post 17

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone else have a different take on this? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation. Unlike some of the posters on this forum, my purpose is not to discredit Rand or to depict her as having "feet of clay," but to evaluate her philosophy honestly and objectively.

I appreciate the sincere effort to deal with these questions, even if you may think I am just here to discredit Rand. She does have some problems, and I'd honestly like to see how Objectivists deal with them.

BTW, Branden's first cause argument conflicts with universal causation, doesn't it?  

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/11, 12:05pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote,
Does anyone else have a different take on this? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation. Unlike some of the posters on this forum, my purpose is not to discredit Rand or to depict her as having "feet of clay," but to evaluate her philosophy honestly and objectively.
Nick replied, "I appreciate the sincere effort to deal with these questions, even if you may think I am just here to discredit Rand. She does have some problems, and I'd honestly like to see how Objectivists deal with them."

I wasn't referring to you, Nick, but to posters on other threads. However, I see that I should not have made that statement in this context, because it was so obviously misleading. Sorry for the unwarranted innuendo.

You ask, "BTW, Branden's first cause argument conflicts with universal causation, doesn't it?"

According to Objectivism, the law of causality states that an entity must act according to its nature, which means that its actions are restricted by its identity - that it can only do what it's nature permits it to do. So, for example, a human being cannot fly (unaided), whereas a bird can. What determines the difference? Their respective natures. It is in the nature of a bird to fly, whereas it is not in the nature of man to do so. Accordingly, the law of causality - which is simply the law of identity applied to action - states that all entities must act according to their natures.

So, if man has free will, then that is part of his nature, in which case, he can initiate a process of thought, de novo, as a first cause in consciousness. There is no violation of the law of causality, because all the law of causality says is that an entity must act according to its nature, and it is in the nature of man to choose freely.

Your thoughts?

- Bill



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Your thoughts?

First, I don't see how causality can be a correlary to the law of identity. The law of identity is an a priori tautology, but causality is empircally verified. Of course, Rand rejects the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, but that's another problem. Simply rejecting it doesn't make it go away.

Second, claiming that man's nature is self-evidently unique is not explaining it. It is proving by edict, not reason.

Third, claiming man can be a first cause has the same problems that the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God have. It uses cause and effect to get to God and then dispenses with it as soom as it gets there. Schopenhaure said the effcient reason is lke a taxi one takes to get to a destination and then he or she gets out.

Those are my thoughts.

bis bald,

Nick


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.