Doubting Objectivist attitudes

Ed Hudgins wrote,

I'm actually reading some fascinating books on the nature of belief. A key assumption to these books seems to contradict part of Rand's thinking. She treated the mind as tabula rasa. But most research into evolution and the brain suggests different. If that is reality, so be it. We had a number of talks at our Objectivist Center Summer Seminar on the human mind. I think they gave a richer and more subtle understanding of human behavior and did not through us into some determinist pit of horrors.

Ed, Walter Donway's talk on "Neuroscience and the Measure of Man" did bring up some interesting points in relation to Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate, by which Pinker means the view that there is no human nature -- that human beings can be molded to become anything one wishes. But Donway was quick to point out that Pinker's view does not contradict Rand's, because all that Rand means by "blank slate" or "tabula rasa" is Locke's view that there are no innate ideas.

Donway said that what neuroscience has revealed is only certain innate capacites, but that innate capacities are not innate ideas. In fact, he stressed Rand's view that man does have a fixed human nature, and that man's proper survival requires certain conditions of existence and no others. So, I didn't get the impression that Rand's view of tabula rasa was in any way being called into question at least in that lecture. I'd be curious to know what research into evolution and the brain suggests that man is born with innate ideas.

- Bill

Post 21

Friday, July 21, 2006 - 5:15pm

Bill you are absolutely right. Humans are not born with ideas. Ideas must be acquired. We are born with capacities, not ideas.

I'd be curious to know what research into evolution and the brain suggests that man is born with innate ideas.

I doubt there is.

Post 22

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 8:50am

Bill -- Good points. I haven't had a chance to listen to Walter's talk but that's a distinction I was thinking of when I said "seems" to contradict Rand. Capacities are part of our nature but we use reason to discover/create ideas and concepts.

Post 23

Saturday, July 22, 2006 - 4:45pm

Joseph S:

     You say that you're done with this subject having clarified for yourself what you wish to clarify. Assuming you may read this thread again anyway, here are *my* thoughts re 'sacrifice'.

     Contrary to popular belief, Rand did not really re-define 'sacrifice', nor the more important word 'selfishness'. She took the dictionary def of 'selfishness' (most common and simplest: "concern for one's self") and re-interpreted it. She identified the fact (need I add with mucho explanatoriness?) that such cannot include hedonists, shopaholics, crack-addicts, robbers, gang-leaders, dictators, etc.

     What's this got to do with her talk about 'sacrifice'? It's relevent to her stress on so many 'morality-leaders' calling for one to 'sacrifice' what they see as their needs (as in, to be redundant, 'selfish' needs...which, then and only then, of course includes people who have personal value to you) as opposed to the larger community (as the 'moral-leader' sees it anyway.) Strictly speaking, she probably wouldn't have mentioned the word (since no one would ever do it on their own) but for so many 'moral-leaders' constantly calling for it...and...as she points out, one way or another (alms-giving, moral-authority-hand-over) someone's ready to 'collect' on guilt-from-not-'sacrificing'-enough. --- I suggest you re-read those passages that bother you where she speaks about 'sacrifice' and implies that no 'moral-leader' is really talking about 'sacrificing' a lesser value for a greater one (such as in baseball or chess.) The 'moral-leader' is asserting (and NOT 'arguing', in any rational meaning of the term) a supposed 'greater' value (supernatural heaven, greater 'community' good, etc)...which one doesn't, yet, personally value (higher than one's own life and people). And, one takes this 'moral-leader's words on faith...or one doesn't.

LLAP
J:D

Post 24

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:39pm