Repression/Emotionalism


anthony

Recommended Posts

"...if anyone can imagine making a rational decision ~without~ emotion..." (William)

Well, yes. Perhaps not the way you mean. If by "rational" we (need to) agree on the meaning that one's life and thought and action is in keeping with reality and the reality of what we are. Life and value are inseparable (as with fact and value). To answer, I think we 'build in', so to speak, emotions into our values, and when a rational decision is to be made the emotion is within it.

I don't believe anything can be done and a life not lived without value, (a central point Rand emphasized often) and value always carries with it the emotional component of caring strongly for persons or things or convictions, beginning at one's life and permeating into every other area of it.

Conversely, if you take it as the popularly perceived 'rationality' and 'logic', i.e. that one sometimes ought to be cold, dispassionate and detached - at odds with the emotional self - then straight away it introduces body-mind dichotomies. ("Shall I act rationally, or do I feel like being emotional for once?" mmm...) That's a view of mankind you hear often: A human calculator with messy emotions. The other is hearing how EQ is superior to IQ. It's all one consciousness, and you've often heard of the integration of mind-body, so with mind-emotion.

As Ive agued in those art debates, to be objective is not to be empirical, scientific, detached, impersonal and unemotional. Emotions are real and need attention and expression. How can one be remote from one's own life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, anthony said:

Korben, I can't believe I somehow missed your entry from Nathaniel's PoSE, one which I've heard is considered by some on OL his best work. I've read or own three of his (which are hard to top in excellence) but not this one.

Thanks.

In this book NB is at the top of his Ayn Rand influenced brain game. Essentially he took his best work from the 1960s and lightly re-edited it.

His next book, Breaking Free, is an illustration of his therapy approach in transition from psychotherapist-diagnosis to self discovery with nascent use of his sentence-completion technique in its primitive form. And there was a complete stop in using moralizing. (PoSE was nothing about psychotherapy. btw.)

The Disowned Self, which followed, was Nathaniel standing in front of his classical therapy period with his ducks lined up ready to go. His sophistication as a therapist continued to grow subsequently until he started doing things decades later I never experienced and still don't understand, like tapping, which superficially seems like acupuncture come to psychotherapy. (This is a metaphor.) On the gut level I didn't like it which doesn't mean if I had ever had a felt need for more help I wouldn't have tried it. Unfortunately he was too effective with me well prior. I might still go to graduate school with Joel Wade, who works off the kind of work NB did classically.

My experience with NB was with abreactive exercises and sentence completion all involving altered states of consciousness that some may label hypnosis, but I don't for to me hypnosis is all about control while NB let things happen while leading you on once you set yourself up. In the group settings he used you didn't work with him unless you asked to. Otherwise, you sat and observed. I once set myself up and he took me in a completely unexpected but appropriate direction. (Actually, he always surprised me that way.)

--Brant

in the group we all sat in a circle with NB at the head--my group had about 25 people, which I understood was quite larger than his California groups, and met once a month for 16 months starting in Sept. 1975--one month was skipped (March 1976)--I participated in the last 12 of those 16--he had already had over 3000 clients and from that I extrapolated he saw over 10,000 in his career plus those who went to his Intensives for the CA groups met weekly and there were at least two going, maybe three, at any one time

in NB's Intensives (starting in the winter of 1977), NB was up front usually on a modest stage--any psychotherapy was psychotherapy-lite one-on-one to protect the person's privacy for many scores of people were watching and the Intensives weren't about therapy, but issues invariably came up and had to be dealt with to some extent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RobinReborn said:
19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Imagine it this way:  what happens to a person's decision-making abilities if these often-unreliable 'tools' are entirely absent?  I mention Antonio Damasio's insights -- perhaps too many times (current count 22), but his work with "Elliot" and other cases of brain disease or injury pointed to the necessary part of emotions in making even the most ordinary decisions.

Since decision-making is a cognitive process, to know that 'missing emotion' cripples a person, this is the strongest suggestion that Emotions are human Tools in Cognition, tools that once lost cannot be replaced by reason.

I'm vaguely familiar with Damasio's work, but I'm not sure how much it applies in this case.  

I recommend Damasio's "Descartes' Error" from your library. It describes the "case" of the patient called "Elliot" ... the subtitle of the book is "Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, and the chapter is A Modern Phineas Gage.  I can briefly describe the case and why I find it applicable or interesting to the question of Emotions as Tools of cognition.  

In a nutshell, Elliot had damage to a part of his pre-frontal cortex.  From that point forward, he lost his ability to make decisions.  (the case is more complex than that, of course, but that is the gist.)

So the point or issue I am inserting is that we have an example of a person, a real person, who had 'lost' his emotions. And that the effect of the loss was profoundly damaging to decision-making. And that decision-making is a cognition.

Quote

The Amygdala is the part of the brain which plays a role in decision making and emotions.  Damaged/malformed Amygdalas can lead to criminality.

Elliot did not have amygdala damage.  Damage to or disease of the amygdala leads to various interesting and awful syndromes, but that isn't applicable to Elliot.  (bringing forward research on the amygdala and decision-making would add another immensely interesting angle on Rand's precepts)

Quote

To use an analogy,

In this case, I prefer not to use analogies, or rather 'argument by analogy.'  I want folks to think through what happened to Elliot and what it might mean to the hard and fast edict that "Emotions are not  (reliable) tools of cognition."
 

Quote

a person with strong muscles and a weak heart probably can't become a great athlete, but they still have strong muscles and can potentially be a good athlete in limited respects.  An intelligent person with a damaged Amygdala might make bad decisions, but they are still intelligent, if they have the right guidance they can contribute to society.

A person with an undamaged amygdala can still make 'bad' decisions.  A human mind does not map to the analogous situations.

Quote

I think the important question is what is the connection between emotions and the values we choose in life.

That is an important question.  I am asking questions from a slightly different angle.

What is the connection between emotions and decision-making?  What if the chosen values can no longer be 'assigned' a bodily sensation (emotion positive or negative)?

Here's a little bit of Damasio which compresses his work with Elliot. 

Feeling Our Emotions | According to noted neurologist Antonio R. Damasio, joy or sorrow can emerge only after the brain registers physical changes in the body

Quote

One day I asked myself, What is missing in a person who can pass an intelligence test with flying colors but can’t even organize his own life? Such patients can hold their own in completely rational arguments but fail, for example, to avoid a situation involving unnecessary risk. These kinds of problems mainly occur after an injury to the forebrain. As our tests prove, the result is a lack of normal emotional reactions. I continue to be fascinated by the fact that feelings are not just the shady side of reason but that they help us to reach decisions as well.

If you donate five bucks to OL, I will lend you a listen to an audio reading of the chapter.  If you give ten bucks I will lend you the chapter text backstage.  It is my own copy, and to Trump with the DMCA ...

btn_donateCC_LG.gif

 

pixel.gif

Edited by william.scherk
Chapter title, direct PayPal URL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the dominant emotion affecting decision making is fear. Making the right decisions is frequently over-riding cowardice making them heroic and markings of integrity. Next is over-coming the tendency to snap-judgments which means taking time to figure things out. There seems to be a major biological component to that reflected in the famous "Stanford marshmallow experiment."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

(bringing forward research on the amygdala and decision-making would add another immensely interesting angle on Rand's precepts)

William,

If that isn't the truth?...

There are several assumptions Rand makes about the brain that are not borne out by recent discoveries in neuroscience. It's not that she's wrong. Once again, it's usually that she's got a scope problem.

She will make a statement like, "Sensations are not recorded in memory." Most are not, I agree. But all?

Besides, how does she know that? Saying it doesn't make it true.

If there is one area of Objectivist epistemology that has a big hole in it, it's a theory of memory. By hole, I don't mean wrong assumptions. I mean there is almost nothing there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"...if anyone can imagine making a rational decision ~without~ emotion..." (William)

Well, yes. Perhaps not the way you mean.

By truncation, my discussion disappears, or the context disappears. 

Quote

If by "rational" we (need to) agree on the meaning

Well then, we need to agree on a meaning, or several -- or better yet, understand what the other discussant means.

You go first ...

Quote

that one's life and thought and action is in keeping with reality and the reality of what we are.

I'd like to give an equally succinct meaning of rational, in the context of my question. What does it mean to Elliot to be 'rational' in his cognitions? What does rational decision-making mean in the context of a 'loss' of emotional valences?

I'll give you an opportunity to review the context and to understand what the truncated question sought to elicit. I will excise the Life/Value/Fact/Value.

"...if anyone can imagine making a rational decision ~without~ emotion..."

Quote

I think we 'build in', so to speak, emotions into our values,

I generally agree, if you mean human beings have in-built mental organization and developmental runs.  In general, the vast majority are born with fully intact emotional systems, ready to be 'programmed' (to use NB's notion).  The emotions are 'tabula rasa' except perhaps in terms of disposition (a hot personality, a cool personality). 

But what was my question again?

Quote

when a rational decision is to be made the emotion is within it.

In the cognition, then.  A rational decision 'contains' the emotional weighting and scoring that underlies decision-making.

But, can you imagine ... ?

Quote

I don't believe anything can be done and a life not lived without value [.,,] value always carries with it the emotional component of caring strongly for persons or things or convictions, beginning at one's life and permeating into every other area of it.

Entertain my questions a bit more fully and I will donate five bucks to OL.

001.jpg

 

Edited by william.scherk
Las Vegas show queen Taboula Razza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I think the dominant emotion affecting decision making is fear. Making the right decisions is frequently over-riding cowardice making them heroic and markings of integrity. Next is over-coming the tendency to snap-judgments which means taking time to figure things out. There seems to be a major biological component to that reflected in the famous "Stanford marshmallow experiment."

--Brant

Familiar to you from combat, I assume? is lifting oneself up every time to do what you have to do, knowing the risks, knowing fear each time. Integrity, right. That's to me - and from a commander's pov, I've heard and well believe - the best kind of soldier, not the dumb hero-type who's blunted his fear and will get himself and others killed. A few gung-ho photogs I knew were killed in hot zones, a few committed suicide later and all were on cocaine almost all the time. What that adds I don't quite know, but I did a little bit of the assignments myself, enough to realise that danger has a weird attraction and fear can be addictive. "Cowardice" and machismo though I consider a false dilemma, prevalent in young men, unhappily..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Wall said:

5 Canadian dollars?

Nope.  Five bucks US.   Five bucks Canadian is a trifling $3.70 in Yankee dollars.

Now go and roust some Snowbirds who have overstayed their visas ...  

Edited by william.scherk
Snowbirds!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Familiar to you from combat, I assume? is lifting oneself up every time to do what you have to do, knowing the risks, knowing fear each time. Integrity, right. That's to me - and from a commander's pov, I've heard and well believe - the best kind of soldier, not the dumb hero-type who's blunted his fear and will get himself and others killed. A few gung-ho photogs I knew were killed in hot zones, a few committed suicide later and all were on cocaine almost all the time. What that adds I don't quite know, but I did a little bit of the assignments myself, enough to realise that danger has a weird attraction and fear can be addictive. "Cowardice" and machismo though I consider a false dilemma, prevalent in young men, unhappily..

No. That was something else. I was talking about moral cowardice, not physical courage. The physical courage a soldier needs in combat is rooted in discipline, personal and through the unit. If you know your unit will do X when it's told to do X you'll do X. The commander's job is to chose X, Y or Z.

There weren't many dumb people in Special Forces. The enlisted men were up there with general officers in the brain department. Today they're smarter, better trained, more capable. However, this is true of all army enlisted, for they have to master their equipment--and carry it. To go into SF as a young man today I'd have to spend a year weight lifting, running (with gear) and swimming first. I'd probably intensively study a foreign language too boot.

--Brant

google special forces aidman

http://www.bobwirt.com

scroll down to the group photo: thirty seven of these men didn't make it through the medical training with this starting group--I'm the fourth from the left back row (never mind the name tag)--six more joined this class for final graduation with me and some of these in the photo graduated with a following class (Gasbarra killed himself in a traffic accident wrapping his car around a pole in Kentucky (1965), Johnson was killed at Con Tien (1967) when a 175mm round blew off his legs, Peters and I believe Wirt died recently, Pekar died rather recently in car accident, Kettlewell went to OCS instead of continuing the training, I had trouble breathing while running in Texas but not after I left Texas, I was fairly friendly with one of these men who was a borderline thug (didn't grad.), most of the first row washed out, one deserted (later must have been mass pardoned by Carter) in protest against the Vietnam War (don't know his name), overall attrition rate to final graduation was about 2/3rds (click on the left side then click on my nose--the lack of a flash on the beret meant not yet SF qualified)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2016 at 6:20 PM, william.scherk said:

Imagine it this way:  what happens to a person's decision-making abilities if these often-unreliable 'tools' are entirely absent?  I mention Antonio Damasio's insights -- perhaps too many times (current count 22), but his work with "Elliot" and other cases of brain disease or injury pointed to the necessary part of emotions in making even the most ordinary decisions.

Since decision-making is a cognitive process, to know that 'missing emotion' cripples a person, this is the strongest suggestion that Emotions are human Tools in Cognition, tools that once lost cannot be replaced by reason.

WSS,

This generated a lot of thought, here goes my response..   When Rand said 'emotions are not tools of cognition' she was saying it under the premises that man has both an emotional mechanism and a cognitive mechanism:

VoS, "Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; [...]"

When Rand talks about values, she indicates emotions are a necessity of consciousness:

VoS, "Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of '“value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of “good or evil” in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation.

[...]

In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of "life or death," but as an issue of "happiness or suffering." Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death---so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss."

Rand doesn't imply there is a reason-emotion dichotomy, she expresses there isn't one:

VoS, "The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement.  Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself."

Playboy, "There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship."

And 'emotions are not tools of cognition':

Playboy, "Reason is man’s tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong."

Playboy, "A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others."

I think Damasio's Elliot supports what Rand is saying, that there isn't a reason-emotion dichotomy rather a critical integration between the two.  How does one make simple decisions when there isn't a biological pleasure incentive?  Elliot is crippled.  How does one value when the biological feedback is cut off?  Elliot again is crippled.  So, reason is man's tool of knowledge, emotions are not tools of cognition, emotions are a tool of ethics and valuing, and there is a critical integration between the two---both are necessary for proper human functioning.

Another question was, "Can you imagine a morality without emotion?"  After reading about Elliot, I wouldn't think virtue ethics would be directly available to him.  It seems consequentalism, utilitarianism, or duty ethics would be a more likely fit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It begins and ends with the concept "Primacy" (and "primary"). Without understanding that, one easily reverses cause and effect.

Q: Does some 'thing' exist because one sees it, - or Does one see some 'thing' because it exists?

Q: Does one value what one feels emotion for - or Does one feel emotion for what one values?

value->emotion; value->emotion. (Disvalue->emotion). Get it back to front and a person ends up with free-floating emotions desperately looking for a place - a "value"- to settle upon. (A Cause, other people, and so on: just as SJW's do ).

This is all reminiscent of discussions about art. Also in art, a mind has to have perceived what the subject IS and have run it through its value-judgment - before an (automated) emotion transpires. 'Beauty' - 'emotional primacy' - is not sufficient on its own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:
On 11/19/2016 at 3:20 PM, william.scherk said:

Since decision-making is a cognitive process, to know that 'missing emotion' cripples a person, this is the strongest suggestion that Emotions are human Tools in Cognition, tools that once lost cannot be replaced by reason.

WSS,

This generated a lot of thought, here goes my response..   When Rand said 'emotions are not tools of cognition' she was saying it under the premises that man has both an emotional mechanism and a cognitive mechanism:

VoS, "Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; [...]"

Thanks for the careful response and quotes -- it gives me much food for thought, if not another TL;DR.

Howzabout the opening topic about 'repression'?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2016 at 7:28 AM, anthony said:

As far as I know, Branden was first ('Benefits and Hazards' essay) to demonstrate that repressed emotions sometimes resulted from Objectivist study. He mentioned in part the (seeming) unemotionality of Rand's fictional characters, idolized and copied by young readers'.

Time for a re-read of this document.  A text version of his 1982 speech is here.  You can also purchase and download an MP3 version from the Nathaniel Branden website ... for five bucks plus four bucks plus 99 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WSS, Thanks for bringing back NB's B+H article, I read it first six-seven years ago and see it in a new light today. It's quite something how one adjusts a first outlook with fresher knowledge.

A line that stands out:

"..not the renunciation of feelings but rather greater respect for reason, thinking and the intellect".

Basically that's all I've been getting at. For all the power of emotion, to realise the greater power of reason. It leaves one with admiration for the both in tandem.

btw. Now that Brant mentioned it, I was mistaken about the Nathaniel book which received high acclaim, I recall it was actually The Disowned Self. I must get a copy. The relationship between self-alienation and repression  - according to NB explained in his insightful and gently-aware but never compromising way. And in his writing his philosophy is always quietly apparent, I think. I once read an interview, dating probably mid 90's, in which he called himself neo-Objectivist. Others here would know if that continued life-long, but with his level of integrity and constancy, one would think so. I used to wonder if that "neo-" was from professional courtesy to the body of Objectivists who'd 'renounced' him. No, probably not, "an altruist" he was not, as he pointedly retorted in the essay (about his treatment by Rand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found this old thread on OL about The Disowned Self, here is an excerpt:

"The most important and original aspect of The Disowned Self is its showing the true relationship of reason to emotion, and in what the application of reason to the sphere of feelings consists. Much of this is implicit, but only implicit, in Branden’s earlier work.

The great virtue of this work is to have (for the first time, so far as I am aware), taken up the problem of man’s self-alienation and self-denial from a rational perspective, retaining above all else a solid respect for both reason and emotions, and to show the appropriate means of their harmonious interaction—appropriate if an individual is to be capable of feeling, thinking and acting, if an individual is to be healthy. It is in this respect that Branden has made a solid contribution to both the science of psychology and to human happiness."

I'm going to pick up a copy as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016/11/24 at 6:53 AM, KorbenDallas said:

Just found this old thread on OL about The Disowned Self, here is an excerpt:

"The most important and original aspect of The Disowned Self is its showing the true relationship of reason to emotion, and in what the application of reason to the sphere of feelings consists. Much of this is implicit, but only implicit, in Branden’s earlier work.

The great virtue of this work is to have (for the first time, so far as I am aware), taken up the problem of man’s self-alienation and self-denial from a rational perspective, retaining above all else a solid respect for both reason and emotions, and to show the appropriate means of their harmonious interaction—appropriate if an individual is to be capable of feeling, thinking and acting, if an individual is to be healthy. It is in this respect that Branden has made a solid contribution to both the science of psychology and to human happiness."

I'm going to pick up a copy as well

The self can be disowned and alienated - both ways (I glean from this): One, by repression of emotions - or two, by repression of reason through primacy of emotion. For me it looks as if NB had in mind the fundamental fallacy of body-mind conflict, spilling over from philosophical thought into psychological consequences.

Emotions are not tools of cognition. It has to be emphasised once more for it to make complete sense that "reason" and "cognition" are the objective method, not rationalist or empiricist. Cognition isn't an empirical-logical 'calculation' of data and facts detached from a consciousness, it is identification, integration and evaluation - hierarchical conceptualization - beginning with the senses. (*Perhaps*, it is beginning to appear to me, an emotionalist replaces the perceptual-conceptual process with 'emotional identification', 'emotional judgment').

What IS it? (first and foremost). How does "it" fit in with my present knowledge and experience? According to the standard of value (man's life) how significant, positively or negatively, is it in my life? (follows an emotion)--and then, is the feeling appropriate to my conscious values, or is it out of sync with them? I. e. Why do I feel this way? (And the circle back to the initial cause in reality can be completed).

Biological urges and impulses, notwithstanding. I think the implicit first and final question, is: who is in charge here? Responses from one's brain mechanisms, as with subconscious memories, associations and experiences, are often mismatched to a situation and one's values, and if allowed free rein, self-alienating. Not to mention, the damage when acted upon. A blind rage. Irrational hatred of an entire 'type' of people. Paralyzing fear. Guilt one doesn't deserve. Etc. If not consciously brought to mind, understood and ultimately over-ridden (that's not "repressed"), they can only do harm to the self. What the repetitive pattern establishes in a mind, is uncontrollable and mysterious reactions randomly come and go, and one is always in their grip and at their mercy. The consequences on self-esteem and one's self-efficacy have to be enormous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016/11/20 at 7:06 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Emotions make us change our mental states but they do not guarantee we end up with sound judgments.  Emotions are no substitute for reason, but emotions will get us thinking and acting. Hume made the point that humans are ruled by passion and only sometimes guided by reason.  

Quite - the same Hume who wrote "Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions".

(Strange. He famously claimed one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'). An interesting fellow and I only know his writing fleetingly, but since I have never understood the empiricist's mindset, reading up further online on his rationale is very helpful.

Incredible, is it not, that a thinker can deny conceptual thought -- another self-contradiction by this anti-intellectual 'intellectual'.

A dip into the Stanford Ency. of Philosophy:

"Generally regarded as one of the most important philosophers to write in English..." [!]

"Kant reported that Hume's work woke him "from his dogmatic slumbers" and Jeremy Bentham remarked that reading Hume "caused the scales to fall from his eyes"". [I promise to not make a remark about bedfellows...]

And:

"..his skeptical conclusions about reason, sense-perception and the self..."

And:

"Now Hume has shown that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism". [Good to have it confirmed, that causality I've often noticed in people and wondered about].

 I think it's plain that Hume's "skeptical conclusions" about "...sense-perception and the self" point at the observable connection to the 'self-lessness' (or at least, of reduced sense of selfhood) by many empirical-skeptics. His (version of) epistemology goes a long way to explain the politics and ethics of the modern intellectual Left.

In Nathaniel Branden's terms - and back to the topic of emotions - it seems to me that disownership of the self just as certainly results from a "disowned", or self-limiting and under-used conceptual faculty, even more critically than it is by disowning and repressing one's emotions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

In Nathaniel Branden's terms - and back to the topic of emotions - it seems to me that disownership of the self just as certainly results from a "disowned", or self-limiting and under-used conceptual faculty, even more critically than it is by disowning and repressing one's emotions.

 

Empiricists do not disown themselves.  They  simply prefer to be guided by facts. Facts Rule,  Theories and Principles Serve (sometimes).

Hume's skepticism lead him to disown and denigrate metaphysics of the Aristotelian and Platonic  sort.

Hume's  critique of causality, as necessary connection between two events  is  well aligned with  current quantum physical thinking.  Hume was ahead of his time. The necessary connection lives in our heads,  not in the external world.  In his early work, Einstein was very much influenced by Hume's empiricism.  Later on in his life Einstein become more Platonic. 

Hume's greatest "sin" was to awaken Kant from his (Kant's)  "dogmatic slumber".   If it were not for Hume,  Rand would not have her "most evil man".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Empiricists do not disown themselves.  They  simply prefer to be guided by facts. Facts Rule,  Theories and Principles Serve (sometimes).

Hume's skepticism lead him to disown and denigrate metaphysics of the Aristotelian and Platonic  sort.

Hume's  critique of causality, as necessary connection between two events  is  well aligned with  current quantum physical thinking.  Hume was ahead of his time. The necessary connection lives in our heads,  not in the external world.  In his early work, Einstein was very much influenced by Hume's empiricism.  Later on in his life Einstein become more Platonic. 

Hume's greatest "sin" was to awaken Kant from his (Kant's)  "dogmatic slumber".   If it were not for Hume,  Rand would not have her "most evil man".

Nicely explained, while I don't agree with the gist - but the last part I concur with wholly. ;) It remains, as you seem to admit,  that Hume's empiricism-skepticism-naturalism might be valuable -only - as far as it is the scientific method. Even here, I have doubts about creating an artificial distinction. Hume could be seen as "A philosopher for scientists", in effect. When it came to "man's mind" he was self-evidently useless and dangerous. Any thinker who denigrates or undermines the consciousness (i.e. his own, included) has to be suspect.

Facts indeed rule. Not without the senses and without gathering them together and ordering them, conceptually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Nicely explained, while I don't agree with the gist - but the last part I concur with wholly. ;) It remains, as you seem to admit,  that Hume's empiricism-skepticism-naturalism might be valuable -only - as far as it is the scientific method. Even here, I have doubts about creating an artificial distinction. Hume could be seen as "A philosopher for scientists", in effect. When it came to "man's mind" he was self-evidently useless and dangerous. Any thinker who denigrates or undermines the consciousness (i.e. his own, included) has to be suspect.

Facts indeed rule. Not without the senses and without gathering them together and ordering them, conceptually.

Popper and Kuhn are the most popular philosophers among physical science people.  Hume is sometimes quoted. His attitude toward metaphysics is well shared by the physical science folks.

Suspect me.  I know consciousness first hand.  I know thinking first hand.  I have never encountered a mind.  Ever.  I attribute all my "mental" doings to my brain whose existence I am 100 percent sure of.  I have a very nice set of MRI images of my brain  at  age 70.  No holes, gaps or shrunken parts. I hope my brain is still in good shape.

I have never, ever encountered a "mind"  in any other person.  What I have encountered are actions,  expressions,  speech,  writing, gestures   of other folks.  In short the only think I can testify to are the externals.  I have no idea what is going on inside of other people, or very little idea.  I have some hypotheses connecting face and body language  of other folks to what they might be thinking, but that is,  well,  hypothetical.  The only person in the universe whose "feelings"  I know are my own.  

And there we are.  I do not deny the existence of a mind in my head.  I just have not encountered it and it has never showed up on a scan.   I do not deny that other people might have minds.  I simply have no knowledge or evidence that they do.  Until I see a definite physical manifestation of a mind (as opposed to a brain)  I will remain agnostic on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now