A metaphysical argument against objectivism


samr

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems to me that animals are good metaphors. I am not sure we can understand their psychology in a literal sense (maybe the psychology of a dog. But a psychology of a bee?)

Ok, since me made so much progress in the other thread, here's another try:

I don't talk about psychology.

I talk about values in the Randian sense. Bees have those. That is what they "want": They "want" to live, or, more exactly, they "want" their queen to have healthy, successful offspring.

Social, as opposed to eusocial, animals "want" to have that healthy offspring themselves.

Values are a property of life forms, to which there is ultimately only two choices: survival and death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's off topic already,

I accept your distinction between social and eusocial animals. It is a very good tool to clarify the difference between an indvidualist and a lone-wolf. (Though I still think an individualist should lean to the lone-wolf more).

-------------

Regarding bees : That is already a discussion in biology, and not in philosophy.

There is a difference between want and "want".

I know that human beings want. Bees are black boxes to us (to me, at least). I am not sure if they want or "want".

To want, versus "want", you need to have a psychological desire, experienced somehow. I don't know about bees, if they have it. Maybe they are just robots?

How do you know what are the mental states of a bee? A robot doesn't want. I am not saying bees are robots, but how do you tell? Robots don't have values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Though I still think an individualist should lean to the lone-wolf more).

I thought so, but I really disagree. If that's individualism,I don't want to be an individualist.

How do you know what are the mental states of a bee? A robot doesn't want. I am not saying bees are robots, but how do you tell? Robots don't have values.

Bees are self-replicating machines, just like human beings.

The difference is consciousness.

Values are a property of life, not of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Though I still think an individualist should lean to the lone-wolf more).
I thought so, but I really disagree. If that's individualism,I don't want to be an individualist.
How do you know what are the mental states of a bee? A robot doesn't want. I am not saying bees are robots, but how do you tell? Robots don't have values.
Bees are self-replicating machines, just like human beings. The difference is consciousness. Values are a property of life, not of consciousness.

"It is only the concept of "life' that makes "value' possible" - if there are no alternatives of action, there can't be values.

So that eliminates bees. I'd guess that biologically a hive of bees is a single organism dedicated to a single end, the queen.

For man, value cannot be realised and attained without consciousness. It is definitely a property of his life.

John, before we (hopefully) move on from the animal kingdom, what do you understand as the "lone wolf"?

Why is it unacceptable to you? And I'm interested in an earlier comment of yours about "mystical" individualism.

Please explain.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is only the concept of "life' that makes "value' possible" - if there are no alternatives of action, there can't be values.

So that eliminates bees.

Bees have alternatives of action. Every lifeform does.

John, before we (hopefully) move on from the animal kingdom, what do you understand as the "lone wolf"?

Why is it unacceptable to you? And I'm interested in an earlier comment of yours about "mystical" individualism.

Please explain.

There is no connection between the following concepts:

1) Not liking company.

2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state.

The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is only the concept of "life' that makes "value' possible" - if there are no alternatives of action, there can't be values.

So that eliminates bees.

Bees have alternatives of action. Every lifeform does.

John, before we (hopefully) move on from the animal kingdom, what do you understand as the "lone wolf"?

Why is it unacceptable to you? And I'm interested in an earlier comment of yours about "mystical" individualism.

Please explain.

There is no connection between the following concepts:

1) Not liking company.

2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state.

The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

John,

I like it! Adam Smiths insight allows us to have 2) and to thrive. Though xray probably thinks that's equivalent to having your cake and eating it too therefor impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no connection between the following concepts: 1) Not liking company. 2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state. The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

[The lone wolf]

OK, got it. That's the trouble with metaphors...

Isn't what you are contrasting basically Nietzschean egoism? which says that whatever the act - rational or irrational - it must be good if it is for one's own benefit.

Opposed by Objectivist rational egoism.

"Mystical individualism" is new to me and is ambiguous, I think. I'd argue for 'Intrinsicist Egotism', or 'whim-egotism', subjective egotism etc,...

anyhow, I agree it is a strawman produced by altruists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't talk about psychology.

I talk about values in the Randian sense. Bees have those. That is what they "want": They "want" to live, or, more exactly, they "want" their queen to have healthy, successful offspring.

Social, as opposed to eusocial, animals "want" to have that healthy offspring themselves.

Values are a property of life forms, to which there is ultimately only two choices: survival and death.

If one equates acting on a biological drive/program with consciously choosing values (for this is what ethics is about), imo it blurs the whole issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no connection between the following concepts:

1) Not liking company.

2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state.

The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

John,

I like it! Adam Smiths insight allows us to have 2) and to thrive. Though xray probably thinks that's equivalent to having your cake and eating it too therefor impossible.

One's own values need not necessarily be in contradiction with those of the society one lives in. I recall having derived, on many occasions, considerable satisfaction from the feeling that my work benefits others too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no connection between the following concepts:

1) Not liking company.

2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state.

The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

John,

I like it! Adam Smiths insight allows us to have 2) and to thrive. Though xray probably thinks that's equivalent to having your cake and eating it too therefor impossible.

One's own values need not necessarily be in contradiction with those of the society one lives in. I recall having derived, on many occasions, considerable satisfaction from the feeling that my work benefits others too.

I believe ones rational values are never in contradiction (but sometimes compete) with his fellows. I believe Ayn Rand attempted to convey this and define a method to determine rational objective values. This is fully consistent with a benevolent universe view and empathy with ones fellow man. I believe Ayn Rand was perhaps one of the kindest philosophers who ever lived which is why I am saddened and sometimes angered when she is portrayed as some sort of moral monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe ones rational values are never in contradiction (but sometimes compete) with his fellows. I believe Ayn Rand attempted to convey this and define a method to determine rational objective values. This is fully consistent with a benevolent universe view and empathy with ones fellow man. I believe Ayn Rand was perhaps one of the kindest philosophers who ever lived which is why I am saddened and sometimes angered when she is portrayed as some sort of moral monster.

It's the reaction to Ayn Rand that shadows the benevolent universe view.

I remember how exited I was to find her, discounting "mystics" as something unusual and rare, full of optimism I could at least convince some of my best friends who I held in high regard.

I didn't talk to them about Rand or Objectivism, I saw the futility long before that.

It's a cruel joke on Rand. All her life she wanted to proove to everybody that man is rational enough to be free, and at the end of all she did, the vast majority showed: See, we're not rational enough to be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no connection between the following concepts: 1) Not liking company. 2) Pursuing ones own values rather than that of the tribe or state. The second is individualism, the first is a strawman of individualism (the "mystical individualism").

[The lone wolf]

OK, got it. That's the trouble with metaphors...

Isn't what you are contrasting basically Nietzschean egoism? which says that whatever the act - rational or irrational - it must be good if it is for one's own benefit.

I guess loners don't necessarily have to be egoistical in any sense. They just don't like company.

Opposed by Objectivist rational egoism.

"Mystical individualism" is new to me and is ambiguous, I think. I'd argue for 'Intrinsicist Egotism', or 'whim-egotism', subjective egotism etc,...

anyhow, I agree it is a strawman produced by altruists.

There's many strawmen, but the one I meant was the socially inept nerd.

As I said above, that isn't necessarily selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one equates acting on a biological drive/program with consciously choosing values (for this is what ethics is about), imo it blurs the whole issue.

I disagree strongly. The program in all life is designed (by natural selection) to promote life. Consciously chosen values have to have that end as well or else they are evil.

It's why I'm very fond of "the animal kingdom". Morality roots in biology, in our nature as survival machines, in the struggle for existence.

It does *not* root in do-gooderism/idealism/deontology. (Which is what I always suspect in others when I sense opposition to biological analogies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe ones rational values are never in contradiction (but sometimes compete) with his fellows. I believe Ayn Rand attempted to convey this and define a method to determine rational objective values. This is fully consistent with a benevolent universe view and empathy with ones fellow man. I believe Ayn Rand was perhaps one of the kindest philosophers who ever lived which is why I am saddened and sometimes angered when she is portrayed as some sort of moral monster.

It's the reaction to Ayn Rand that shadows the benevolent universe view.

I remember how exited I was to find her, discounting "mystics" as something unusual and rare, full of optimism I could at least convince some of my best friends who I held in high regard.

I didn't talk to them about Rand or Objectivism, I saw the futility long before that.

It's a cruel joke on Rand. All her life she wanted to proove to everybody that man is rational enough to be free, and at the end of all she did, the vast majority showed: See, we're not rational enough to be free.

I believe you are too pessimistic. Human nature is rational, civilization would not have progressed if not. I wouldn't believe in markets if I didn't believe people on average make rational decisions. It seems a subtle distinction between rule making and the rule of law but the results of choosing rule making over the rule of law (rights respecting) are becoming more and more evident as time passes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are too pessimistic. Human nature is rational, civilization would not have progressed if not.

I'm actually optimistic as far as the world is concerned.

As in: The world in 100 years will be very rational, orderly, just and healthy.

But that's not because most people are rational. It's because those few that are rational won't allow the rest their undeserved "freedom" anymore.

As it used to be in the West of the 19th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are too pessimistic. Human nature is rational, civilization would not have progressed if not.

I'm actually optimistic as far as the world is concerned.

As in: The world in 100 years will be very rational, orderly, just and healthy.

But that's not because most people are rational. It's because those few that are rational won't allow the rest their undeserved "freedom" anymore.

As it used to be in the West of the 19th century.

All men are self interested and rational by nature. They suffer from misconception and false information. I assume by undeserved "freedom" you are referring to the "freedom" to loot.

I'd like to see a constitutional provision that removes perjurers from the government. A proven lie would disqualify a person from holding any office, political or bureaucratic, or pension from the government. Lets see how honest people conduct government affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are too pessimistic. Human nature is rational, civilization would not have progressed if not.

I'm actually optimistic as far as the world is concerned.

As in: The world in 100 years will be very rational, orderly, just and healthy.

But that's not because most people are rational. It's because those few that are rational won't allow the rest their undeserved "freedom" anymore.

As it used to be in the West of the 19th century.

Ah! The "rule of the airmen!" Tyranny for freedom! You've one-upped George Orwell. Oh, BTW, I suggest more reading in 19th century history. Also, world history generally. While history is being accelerated right now it's going to de-accelerate with an economic and political smash. Yet, absent that comet or asteroid that'll kill us all--woe!--things will get better and better over a generous period of time, but that'll have more to do with technology than philosophy which needs to get its act together for any beneficent impact that will be needed but probably lacking.

--Brant

can you believe this stuff on an Objectivist site?--JR can, but he's omnipotent in the brain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I'm not sure John meant exactly what you think he meant. I'm hoping he's talking about so-called "positive" rights and ending the free lunch entitlement "freedom". I'm judging by his words in other posts.

Yes, of course.

[EDIT: Rest of the post deleted, I leave it there.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one equates acting on a biological drive/program with consciously choosing values (for this is what ethics is about), imo it blurs the whole issue.
I disagree strongly. The program in all life is designed (by natural selection) to promote life. Consciously chosen values have to have that end as well or else they are evil. It's why I'm very fond of "the animal kingdom". Morality roots in biology, in our nature as survival machines, in the struggle for existence. It does *not* root in do-gooderism/idealism/deontology. (Which is what I always suspect in others when I sense opposition to biological analogies.)

--yes, but it's a fine line to walk, isn't it?

For instance I "suspect" those who over-emphasize Man's animal roots - of determinism, social Darwinism, or (gasp) 'concretism'.

Analogies with animals or insects, are fine, and actually sort-of uplifting.

Study the lowly cockroach, and one may be left with a sense of admiration for its incredible survivability, self-preservation, and will to life. But man's programed survivability is inferior to the cockroach's.

Not one objective fact can be drawn from such analogy; reason, value, and morality are 'all' we've got and can count on. That I know of, we have no "nature as survival machines" as a species: one, by one, each has to learn and choose.

So, it is a fine line - and before we suspect anyone of veering too far one way into biological determinism, or the other into rationalistic idealism, we should probably - in all goodwill - allow plenty of benefit of the doubt.

Tony

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