RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:44am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Rand was specifically aware that acts which arose without rational thought were purely instinctual when she called such an origin "that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought"ť. She understood that these instinctual programs were the "secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence". She also realized that avoiding these programs was not "automatic" and that people who operated without reason (animals alone) could themselves not be reasoned with when she said: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone". Evidence that she intuitively understood that people acting on instinctual programs alone did not use rational thought prior to behavior. And that these animals could not consequently be reasoned with themselves. How then does she reach the conclusion that man's irrationality is "the rejection of man's means of survival". This would seem to be a contradiction, since behavior without rational thought would be simply instinctual and simply instinctual behavior is probably a better means toward survival then interjecting rational thought before acting.

It would rather seem that the only purpose rational thought could serve is an ability to rationally think about one's survival (and wants, needs and desires) in terms and in relation to the consequence to the survival of another human being (and to act accordingly). In other words, a rational human being is not acting on his values alone, but rather on his values in relation to the values and conditions of others. This examination includes an understanding that there is a difference between the value we place on an object and our actual needs and understanding that the value we place on any object is temporal (and therefore illusionary).

This is exemplified by the fact that many actions which would further our own values or survival we intuitively deem to be immoral. These include killing, stealing, etc.
(Edited by Amos Knows on 12/28, 5:00pm)

Post 1

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 11:12pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Amos,

=============
... simply instinctual behavior is probably a better means toward survival then interjecting rational thought before acting.
=============
But humans couldn't ever make it in the wild using instincts. Without claws, fangs, or huge muscles -- they'd be eaten alive. Humans are a specific being which require rationality for continued survival, because not only are instincts not enough -- they could never be enough (for US).

You seem to have missed this basic fact.

===============
It would rather seem that the only purpose rational thought could serve is an ability to rationally think about one's survival (and wants, needs and desires) in terms and in relation to the consequence to the survival of another human being (and to act accordingly).
===============
What about Robinson Crusoe, or Grizzly Adams -- or Tom Hanks in the film: Castaway? If what you say is true, then they couldn't use rational thought to survive -- because, according to your hypothesis, other people have to be around first in order to provide the "only purpose" of rational thought.

You seem to have missed this basic counter-example.

==================
... and understanding that the value we place on any object is temporal (and therefore illusionary).
==================
But, if the temporal is illusionary, and your life on earth is temporal, then your life on earth is illusionary. And, if your very life is an illusion, then it doesn't really matter what you do.

You seem to have missed this basic reasoning.

Ed