One true philosophy or not

[john42t]

All of them are the objectively rational definitions, the egoistic ones. For example, by honesty, O'ists don't mean being truthful to others - primarily- we mean not faking reality to ourselves (prior to anyone else coming into it.)

It didn't occur to me to define honesty that way. It might make sense, I certainly agree fully with the primary virtue being not faking reality to ourselves.

Objectivism doesn't oppose the conscious liar as much as unconscious hypocrite, who is more common by a along way.

[Dglgmut]

If you don't understand why 2 + 2 = 4, are you irrational or unaware? If I know what two means, and I know what four means, it's impossible for me to believe anything that contradicts 2 + 2 = 4. If you agree that it's impossible, doesn't that support my claim that reason is automatic? What I don't think is automatic is effort.

That's a redundancy. By definition, an effort cannot be automatic.

Your logic (2+2) required effort, because knowledge is not "received" (the fallacy of intrinsicism, or mysticism).

Once you arrive at "4", you can choose to evade that new knowledge, which is then a moral issue of irrational evasion.

Next, you need more effort to integrate "4" - without contradiction - into the sum of your present knowledge. (Concept formation).

Last, you have the choice to ACT upon this fresh concept, or not. Since you no longer can claim ignorance, it would be irrational ie immoral, to not do so.

(Please notice that the first step in the chain was "logical" - the next three, "rational".)

You still want to claim that reason is automatic?

Let me put it simply: I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself. I think we can avoid the truth out of fear, but not by choice. The step that you use in your example which I have an issue with is the choice to evade new knowledge.

It takes effort to seek truth, but if truth is already staring you in the face, how can you choose to ignore it?

Rand said the question was to think or not to think, which is basically just putting faith in your brain's ability to bring the truth to your attention... at which point, you must acknowledge it, but you didn't have to think in the first place.

Perhaps what the real issue is the acceptance of a truth.

For example, to say that "We can never know," is the equivalent of saying, "There is no answer," because if there was an answer, then there should be no reason that we can't know it. Self-esteem may be important, but maybe the denial that a truth even exists is what really causes irrationality.

It's either the belief that the brain is incapable of apprehending truth, or the belief of a lack of a truth... One of these must be the culprit.

[john42t]

Let me put it simply: I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself. I think we can avoid the truth out of fear, but not by choice. The step that you use in your example which I have an issue with is the choice to evade new knowledge.

This is the most fundamental single new thing I took from Rand: That people can, and often do, lie to themselves.

What's easy to reject is new information: It could be false. For example, you don't have to believe what scientists say. They could be mistaken. You don't even have to believe what you see with your own eyes, it could be an hallucination.

But it goes way deeper than that. People believe in one thing and its opposite at different times in a conversation and evade the contradiction. Orwellian doublethink is real - but it's not a trained technique, it's the irrational default.

I had a discussion with a former friend of mine who would say to my asking "Do you see yourself as a Muslim or identify with them?": "No, but I just see Americans critical and other Muslism do so too." (or something like that) He would say "I'm not a Muslim" and imply "I'm a Muslim" in the very same sentence and evade the contradiction.

Or often did I have this discussion about God: "Everything that exists has to be created (premise A), so there must be a creator." Of course this begs the question why the creator can be exempted from the rule.

But that can be made to work if you hold premise A and premise "not A" in the same reasoning at different times.

They work like this: They want to believe in C, C presupposes B, so they must believe in B also. At some point they reach A and not A, but they won't realize it unless you tell them, which is when they get angry.

My friend didn't want to be a Muslim and wanted to be a Muslim. He could make this work by assuming one or the other depending on what argument he wanted to make.

It's totally scary.

[Dglgmut]

John, to disagree with a scientist is not equivalent to evading truth. To disagree with what you see with your own eyes is not evading truth, either. To disagree with anything is to find reason for it to be untrue.

I think your version of people lying to themselves is what I described as people denying truth out of fear. I mean, I guess it's hard to say whether it really is a choice or not.

Denial is emotional, but is connected to reason. The connection is the contradiction to a previously upheld belief.

What people are afraid of is being proven terribly wrong. ...this could be very rational.

When we accept that we were wrong, it may be a blow to our faith in our own intelligence.

So we learn the "new" truth... now what? We have a new belief, but we also have evidence that we can't even trust ourselves.

I think it may be a little trickier than choosing to be reasonable... but you may be right, overall, that it is a choice between reason and emotional comfort.

[Xray]

Let's try it this way: Name one deed you'd consider immoral that doesn't involve someone else. If you can't, it implies you restrict the term to dealings with other people. Morality would depend on others, which is the altruist premise.

All moral systems are connected to our living in contact with other human beings. This has nothing to do with collectivism, but is a simple fact. Since humans have been socialized by other humans, they can't conceive of themelves as unsocialized beings living in total isolation. Hence, moral systems would not have originated at all without socialization. Socialization and morality are correlated, and all moral codes (including Rand's) are about guiding man's actions in dealing with other people.

Even if humans should voluntarily decide to live as hermits on desert islands, they would bring their previous experience as socialized beings into their new life.

So when you "ought to" be selfish, there's no duty.

Suppose one does not act on the "ought to", would one be condemned as immoral?

[john42t]

[...] all moral codes (including Rand's) are about guiding man's actions in dealing with other people.

I disagree with this.

I agree it's a commonly accepted connotation. But as I said, morality is a word not to be surrendered.

So when you "ought to" be selfish, there's no duty.

Suppose one does not act on the "ought to", would one be condemned as immoral?

Yes.

For example, if you feel that your partner is doing only what you want from him and disregards his own desires (eg out of fear of rejection), you would "condemn him as immoral", that means to tell him that he really shouldn't sacrifice to you in some constructive way. You'll do that because you know that nothing good can come from such a sacrifical relationship, meaning you do it for selfish reasons.

Your neighbour, on the other hand, isn't likely to give a damn about it. Why would they?

[Dglgmut]

Xray, if I misunderstand your post I apologize, but morality does not need society to exist. For example, self-destruction or self-neglect may also be considered immoral. Wastefulness in general may be considered immoral.

And John, my last post was sort of conflicted... Would you agree that we can simplify irrationality as choosing in favor of emotional well-being over knowledge/truth?

Another simple argument against determinism may be something along the lines of: If everything is determined, then existence itself is determined.... By what? Non-existence?

[anthony]

If you don't understand why 2 + 2 = 4, are you irrational or unaware? If I know what two means, and I know what four means, it's impossible for me to believe anything that contradicts 2 + 2 = 4. If you agree that it's impossible, doesn't that support my claim that reason is automatic? What I don't think is automatic is effort.

That's a redundancy. By definition, an effort cannot be automatic. Your logic (2+2) required effort, because knowledge is not "received" (the fallacy of intrinsicism, or mysticism). Once you arrive at "4", you can choose to evade that new knowledge, which is then a moral issue of irrational evasion. Next, you need more effort to integrate "4" - without contradiction - into the sum of your present knowledge. (Concept formation). Last, you have the choice to ACT upon this fresh concept, or not. Since you no longer can claim ignorance, it would be irrational ie immoral, to not do so. (Please notice that the first step in the chain was "logical" - the next three, "rational".) You still want to claim that reason is automatic?

Let me put it simply: I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself. I think we can avoid the truth out of fear, but not by choice. The step that you use in your example which I have an issue with is the choice to evade new knowledge. It takes effort to seek truth, but if truth is already staring you in the face, how can you choose to ignore it? Rand said the question was to think or not to think, which is basically just putting faith in your brain's ability to bring the truth to your attention... at which point, you must acknowledge it, but you didn't have to think in the first place. Perhaps what the real issue is the acceptance of a truth. For example, to say that "We can never know," is the equivalent of saying, "There is no answer," because if there was an answer, then there should be no reason that we can't know it. Self-esteem may be important, but maybe the denial that a truth even exists is what really causes irrationality. It's either the belief that the brain is incapable of apprehending truth, or the belief of a lack of a truth... One of these must be the culprit.

"Truth...how can you choose to ignore it?"

I don't know - you tell me. How do you know you haven't? Denial (psychological) and evasion (philosophical) are part of the 'human condition', and not one person has not evaded reality, at one time, or a lot of the time.

I get the impression that you are considering 'knowledge' as mainly the basic logical/empirical.

But it is critical to not deny denial, or evade evasion, I think.

Only careful introspection of one's concepts, thoughts, and emotions, involving past experiences, can reveal the extent we are and have done.

How many times did we blind our eyes and consciousness to reality? leave undone (unexpressed) what we should ('ought to')have done, or done that which we knew was 'beneath us'? There were times we didn't know better,(have relevant information, or principles) and this is a lesser and self-excusable wrong; but when we did possess the morality and knowledge - and betrayed it - that the greatest damage to one's happiness and one's Self will occur. i.e., one's rationality.

"It's either the belief that the brain is incapable of apprehending truth - or the belief of a lack of truth...One of these must be the culprit."[Dglgmut]

That is utterly wrong. It's a false dichotomy. Philosophically the statement is one of Skepticism-Subjectivism, rebutted by Objectivism, also in other philosophies. Truth - reality - exists, and the 'Mind' is capable of apprehending it. It is the fundament of O'ism.

[anthony]

What people are afraid of is being proven terribly wrong. ...this could be very rational.

When we accept that we were wrong, it may be a blow to our faith in our own intelligence.

So we learn the "new" truth... now what? We have a new belief, but we also have evidence that we can't even trust ourselves.

I think it may be a little trickier than choosing to be reasonable... but you may be right, overall, that it is a choice between reason and emotional comfort.

Calvin,

I am pretty sure that John was not prescribing anything by this: "but you may be right, overall, that it is a choice between reason and emotional comfort." I believe he was illustrating an example of evasion from real life. Something he observed in someone else.

There is no "choice" between them. As we've said, there is direct causality between reason and emotions - or, conversely, between irrationality and emotional 'discomfort'.

To dichotomize them, is to introduce dualism (and schizophrenia, psychologically.)

Tony

[Dglgmut]

Tony, I think this is another case of you misinterpreting my post.

I never suggested that truth didn't exist or that we are incapable of knowing. I was trying to explain how someone could choose to evade truth... They would have to rationalize it somehow.

The conclusion I came to, for how rationality is the choice of being reasonable, is that the choice is between new information, and a previous belief. If new information appears reasonable to the subject, it's hard to explain how they could deny it... because an explanation is an application of reason, and what we're explaining is how someone can be unreasonable.

I believe the answer is fear. Why would we fear new information if it would better shape our understanding of reality? Because it conflicts with a previous belief--a behavior forming belief.

If new information undermines our intelligence / our capacity for reason / our ability to know, then we are put in a paradoxical situation where accepting truth is defeat and evading it is an act of self-preservation.

This would also explain the Socrates "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." stuff... Deprecation of ones own intelligence is a way of saving face. You can't be proven wrong if your only belief is that you're always wrong. It's a safety net; that's all.

Tony, what is the choice, if not between being rational vs emotional?

[anthony]

If you don't understand why 2 + 2 = 4, are you irrational or unaware? If I know what two means, and I know what four means, it's impossible for me to believe anything that contradicts 2 + 2 = 4. If you agree that it's impossible, doesn't that support my claim that reason is automatic? What I don't think is automatic is effort.

That's a redundancy. By definition, an effort cannot be automatic. Your logic (2+2) required effort, because knowledge is not "received" (the fallacy of intrinsicism, or mysticism). Once you arrive at "4", you can choose to evade that new knowledge, which is then a moral issue of irrational evasion. Next, you need more effort to integrate "4" - without contradiction - into the sum of your present knowledge. (Concept formation). Last, you have the choice to ACT upon this fresh concept, or not. Since you no longer can claim ignorance, it would be irrational ie immoral, to not do so. (Please notice that the first step in the chain was "logical" - the next three, "rational".) You still want to claim that reason is automatic?

Let me put it simply: I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself. I think we can avoid the truth out of fear, but not by choice. The step that you use in your example which I have an issue with is the choice to evade new knowledge. It takes effort to seek truth, but if truth is already staring you in the face, how can you choose to ignore it? Rand said the question was to think or not to think, which is basically just putting faith in your brain's ability to bring the truth to your attention... at which point, you must acknowledge it, but you didn't have to think in the first place. Perhaps what the real issue is the acceptance of a truth. For example, to say that "We can never know," is the equivalent of saying, "There is no answer," because if there was an answer, then there should be no reason that we can't know it. Self-esteem may be important, but maybe the denial that a truth even exists is what really causes irrationality. It's either the belief that the brain is incapable of apprehending truth, or the belief of a lack of a truth... One of these must be the culprit.

Calvin,

Look at your statement "I think we can avoid the truth out of fear, not out of choice."

Fine, I realise you are seeking the causes for human denial and evasions, but you are looking for them psychologically, not philosophically.

You mention "perceptions"- "behavior forming beliefs", - you say "we",do this or that - and "denial is emotional, but is connected to reason."

As psychological observations and conclusions go, they are valid, and often perceptive.

From a philosophical, and specifically Objectivist , p.o.v., though, this is of lesser significance.

I agree that much of human motivation and error is fear-based. This is almost a cliche. But it implies that courage - alone- is all that one needs.

The O'ist principle is that knowledge is non-automatic, self-generated and volitional. The choice at every stage is a MORAL one, to adhere to reality or not.

Do you believe that a Stalin or a Pol Pot ordered the most brutal actions because of poor self-esteem and "evasion by fear"?!!

No, their evasions were of those of reality: their view of the nature (or sub-nature to be accurate) of human life. They did not have to be sociopathic to do that. They began with irrational evasion, and added justification upon rationalization after.

That is the philosophical argument, and it over-rides the psychological. If I misinterpreted you at all, if we've been at cross-purposes, here's the cause.

Also, there is no choice between "being rational vs. emotional" - unless one chooses to split them. Fully rational, contains emotional. Being a "rational animal", ie human, means we are both. Reason our only guide; emotions, our barometer and our pay-off.

[Dglgmut]

What purpose does a lie serve? Why would we choose a lie if not for emotional reasons? Laziness? Disinterest? I'm curious to know what you think it is, because I'm having no luck here.

I like what you say about courage being the only thing necessary for rationality (if I am clear about what you meant).

[anthony]

I like what you say about courage being the only thing necessary for rationality (if I am clear about what you meant).

Nope Cal, not that at all. I indicated only that under the psychological "evasion because of fear, premise", that courage is perhaps the antidote to fear- which seems obvious.

Your turn to misinterpret me, methinks.

Look, in a nutshell, the philosophical and O'ist meaning of evasion is "making" a "different reality" to suit one's ever-changing whims, and desires.

Not fear-based, but subjectivism-based, largely.

Essentially, primacy of consciousness, not of existence. I'd call it a philosophical 'narcissism'.

[Dglgmut]

Just before you posted I was thinking the cause may be putting oneself before existence... but isn't that a misunderstanding rather than a choice... Unless the choice is to be aware? To acknowledge reality?

Maybe it's not the questions we ask, but where we look for answers. If we look to ourselves for answers, we will have to lie, if we look to reality on the other hand...

[anthony]

Just before you posted I was thinking the cause may be putting oneself before reality... but isn't that a misunderstanding rather than a choice... Unless the choice is to be aware? To acknowledge reality?

Absolutely. Well said. There can't be misunderstanding, because we 'know' the right choice.

As I posted, I recalled something Rand wrote, I think in AS.

It was about fear and guilt - but what's interesting, is she posited them both as the RESULT of evasion, not the CAUSE.

Evading, iow, leads one to fear and guilt, because one knows one has sacrificed the only means for life.

Possibly you could argue, then, that this primary fear prompts more evasion...so more fear, and on and on.

A quote I have that is fitting here: "By refusing to say "It is", you are refusing to say "I am". By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person; when a man declares - Who am I to know? - he is declaring - Who am I to live?"

[Xray]

If not, what does the "ought to" stand for? If it is a mere suggestion, it is too noncommittal.

The "ought to" is the same concept. It's exactly how I define morality: What you ought to do. But "duty" is when you "ought to" do something that doesn't benefit you - that's what I would take as the definition for the word "duty". That's very much how Kant meant it I believe. So when you "ought to" be selfish, there's no duty. That's the one thing you can't have a duty to, as that would contradict the definition of duty.

Yes, though I personally don't have a problem with "must" - as in man must be productive "as his noblest activity" (irrelevant that he has enough wealth); must be independent (holding his own mind as supreme); must be honest (ultimate respect for reality).

And so on, with all the virtues - geared at achieving and keeping his values.

It is this, the metaphysical state of what is proper to man, that Xray picks away at.

I’m digging, not picking. I want to get the the root of the issue.

What if my idea of life proper to man happens differ from Rand's in several respects? One of my highest values (empathy) does not not figure in the Objectivist list - would I be called 'irrational' then?

She has heard my own and others' arguments countless times, but hasn't stopped looking for ways to 'refute' Rand.

Very often the argumentation was circular, like listing Objectivist values and virtues "proper to man".

The last attempt - that Rand deliberately didn't use 'must' because it would counter the individualist ethics, is one of her most ludicrous.

I have been trying to attribute rationality to Rand here, interpreting her choice of words accordingly.

But when I think it over, you do have a point: possibly she did not really make a precise distinction between "must" and "ought to", but used "ought to" interchangeable with "must". Her "fish" example from biology seems to indicate this.

[Xray]

[...] all moral codes (including Rand's) are about guiding man's actions in dealing with other people.

I disagree with this.

I agree it's a commonly accepted connotation. But as I said, morality is a word not to be surrendered.

I find your choice of the term "surrender" here quite interesting (you also used it in the same context in a prior post).

"Surrender" means giving something up while in a position of defense (or in retreat from an antagonistic force that has the potential of overpowering the defender).

I sense a very strong attachment to morality on your part; a morality you want to protect against what 'antagonistic force'?

So when you "ought to" be selfish, there's no duty.

Suppose one does not act on the "ought to", would one be condemned as immoral?

Yes.

For example, if you feel that your partner is doing only what you want from him and disregards his own desires (eg out of fear of rejection), you would "condemn him as immoral", that means to tell him that he really shouldn't sacrifice to you in some constructive way. You'll do that because you know that nothing good can come from such a sacrifical relationship, meaning you do it for selfish reasons.

While I might regard a partner as quite boring who does only what I want, constantly disregarding his own desires, I would not consider him to be immoral. I would ask myself why he lacks self-confidence; again, I would not condemn as immoral a person who fears being rejected.

[Dglgmut]

Xray: If someone acts out of a fear of being rejected, who are they? They are not a person at this point, they are a byproduct of other personalities.

Edit:

Tony, I think your point about people putting consciousness before existence is the most important thing. I think it's true, but I still can't explain how/why people would do that.

Perhaps it comes from a misconception of self. But that wouldn't be a choice, would it?

[john42t]

I sense a very strong attachment to morality on your part; a morality you want to protect against what 'antagonistic force'?

Mallory's drooling beast, the force of irrationality, which brought all evil in the world, most notably the dark ages and whatever you call what was behind the iron curtain.

It's not a distinct group of people, but it's some people more than others. It's in all of us to some extent, surely I've seen it in myself.

The force corrupts language and turns reason against man. Since most (all?) men are intellectually second-handed in one way or another, this has massive consequences.

Some corruptions are more important than others. The definition of morality is one of the more important ones, but even more important is probably the "do-gooder premise" we've been argueing about.

An example template of a rather unimportant kind of corruption is: "Programming language X is better than Y because of Z." (uttered by someone whose skill is X and identifies with it).

All of this has its origin in evasion.

A learned worker who didn't want to face the fact that his skill is becoming useless, an altruist who doesn't want to face the fact that he sold out and is now worthless - it's all one and the same, the latter is only more frequent, more fundamental and thus more dangerous.

[caroljane]

I sense a very strong attachment to morality on your part; a morality you want to protect against what 'antagonistic force'?

Mallory's drooling beast, the force of irrationality, which brought all evil in the world, most notably the dark ages and whatever you call what was behind the iron curtain.

It's not a distinct group of people, but it's some people more than others. It's in all of us to some extent, surely I've seen it in myself.

The force corrupts language and turns reason against man. Since most (all?) men are intellectually second-handed in one way or another, this has massive consequences.

Some corruptions are more important than others. The definition of morality is one of the more important ones, but even more important is probably the "do-gooder premise" we've been argueing about.

An example template of a rather unimportant kind of corruption is: "Programming language X is better than Y because of Z." (uttered by someone whose skill is X and identifies with it).

All of this has its origin in evasion.

A learned worker who didn't want to face the fact that his skill is becoming useless, an altruist who doesn't want to face the fact that he sold out and is now worthless - it's all one and the same, the latter is only more frequent, more fundamental and thus more dangerous.

Dangerous to whom? To you? If workers evade the "reality" that their skills are becoming worthless, how does this threaten you, who would never evade such an inevitability, and presumably might profit in the job market from the cluelessness of others?

[john42t]

Dangerous to whom? To you? If workers evade the "reality" that their skills are becoming worthless, how does this threaten you, who would never evade such an inevitability, and presumably might profit in the job market from the cluelessness of others?

I said that it is the less dangerous form of corruption and I said I saw it in myself (this one in particular actually).

Also, I don't believe that I can ever profit from others being irrational (which I believe is what you're saying here). To put it extremely, how do I profit from the "cluelessness" of cats and dogs - they are even more clueless, aren't they?

[caroljane]

Dangerous to whom? To you? If workers evade the "reality" that their skills are becoming worthless, how does this threaten you, who would never evade such an inevitability, and presumably might profit in the job market from the cluelessness of others?

I said that it is the less dangerous form of corruption and I said I saw it in myself (this one in particular actually).

Also, I don't believe that I can ever profit from others being irrational (which I believe is what you're saying here). To put it extremely, how do I profit from the "cluelessness" of cats and dogs - they are even more clueless, aren't they?

Whoa, that's a big leap from a specific situation into the Wide World of Animals. Let's just stick with homo erectus for now. In reality, the hightech job market is finite. If workers of equal ability to yours irrationally refuse to learn new skills, you will be employed to ply those skills instead of them - you would have an advantage.

I was picking up on Xray's probings about threat and danger.

[john42t]

In reality, the hightech job market is finite. [...]

This is marxism.

[Brant Gaede]

In reality, the hightech job market is finite. [...]

This is marxism.

I dunno about that. She had an orange and you threw in an apple, without explanation. Also, a part of Marxism is not Marxism. Individual rights is not Objectivism but of Objectivism. It's of a lot of other things, ideologically speaking, especially libertarianism.

--Brant

the finite is finite, the infinite must be of infinite finites but we don't know either; we just try to imagine for the infinite cannot in itself be a finite--a thing--it's an idea only so far--so infinite finites is of that also

[anthony]

Edit: Tony, I think your point about people putting consciousness before existence is the most important thing. I think it's true, but I still can't explain how/why people would do that. Perhaps it comes from a misconception of self. But that wouldn't be a choice, would it?

I'd like to know how/why as well. I have been wondering about it for ages. I can only make reasonably informed guesses about philosophically flawed premises, combined with psychological disorder. One strong contender is the basic need for self-esteem common to us all - but here, perverted into "me, me, always and first - and never mind about reality". Counterfeit self-esteem, that places consciousness ('self-importance') before reality.

The genuine article is rational, and earned - founded upon your past and present dealings with existence.

I do believe there is choice in the matter : metaphysically, one made the wrong choice at some stage. Once understood (without evasion) the choice to change, and change itself, can follow.