MQM?

[BaalChatzaf]

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

All of them fit into that category, in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings.

Man qua man is an abstraction. It is simply another way of talking about human nature, i.e., those characteristics that humans have in common, sometimes with an emphasis on their most essential characteristics, such as reason.

It is because we have common characteristics that we can speak of human beings in general, rather than needing to refer in every case to Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Does this topic really merit a separate thread?

Ghs

[dan2100]

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

All of them fit into that category, in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings.

Man qua man is an abstraction. It is simply another way of talking about human nature, i.e., those characteristics that humans have in common, sometimes with an emphasis on their most essential characteristics, such as reason.

It is because we have common characteristics that we can speak of human beings in general, rather than needing to refer in every case to Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Does this topic really merit a separate thread?

Ghs

If he truly meant "MQM" as "man qua man," perhaps he was looking for a way to rationalize his genocidal fantasies.

[BaalChatzaf]

If he truly meant "MQM" as "man qua man," perhaps he was looking for a way to rationalize his genocidal fantasies.

Stop psychologizing. I was attempting to find out if MQM meant more than being a human. Apparently it doesn't, so it is a redundant misleading abuse of language.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I think the expression means human being according the the full set of normal capacities, i.e., on a level where there are no humans who are more human than the other humans.

That's a little more than a redundancy. And it's also probably why Rand used the term "inhuman" and "subhuman"so much. On their level and according to them, there are humans who are more human than the other humans.

Of course, by Rand using this term, she does the same thing...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

If he truly meant "MQM" as "man qua man," perhaps he was looking for a way to rationalize his genocidal fantasies.

Stop psychologizing. I was attempting to find out if MQM meant more than being a human. Apparently it doesn't, so it is a redundant misleading abuse of language.

Ba'al Chatzaf

MQM doesn't mean "being a human." When I referred to MQM arguments, I obviously didn't mean "being a human" arguments, whatever the latter might mean.

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to speak of subatomic particles having "free will" should be very careful about criticizing others for using misleading language.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

All of them fit into that category, in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings.

Man qua man is an abstraction. It is simply another way of talking about human nature, i.e., those characteristics that humans have in common, sometimes with an emphasis on their most essential characteristics, such as reason.

It is because we have common characteristics that we can speak of human beings in general, rather than needing to refer in every case to Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Does this topic really merit a separate thread?

Ghs

I think I have to differ, George, about AR's thinking of all humans as fitting into her "man qua man" "in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings."

Agreed that the phrase is an abstraction, but I think she used it as an abstraction for the characteristics of a rational being, which she didn't think all humans are in actuality (and I wonder if she even thought all humans are potentially -- see, for instance, the comments you quoted on another thread about "The Missing Link").

She says in Galt's Speech something about the human having to be human by choice. She describes the choice as that between being human and being a suicidal animal, which she says has mostly been the choice in human history. And there are a number of places where she speaks of "subhumans." So I question that she did mean "simply [...] those characteristics that humans have in common." I think she meant something stronger, characteristics a fully human human has but that not all humans do have.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

Ba'al Chatzaf

All of them fit into that category, in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings.

Man qua man is an abstraction. It is simply another way of talking about human nature, i.e., those characteristics that humans have in common, sometimes with an emphasis on their most essential characteristics, such as reason.

It is because we have common characteristics that we can speak of human beings in general, rather than needing to refer in every case to Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Does this topic really merit a separate thread?

Ghs

I think I have to differ, George, about AR's thinking of all humans as fitting into her "man qua man" "in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings."

Agreed that the phrase is an abstraction, but I think she used it as an abstraction for the characteristics of a rational being, which she didn't think all humans are in actuality (and I wonder if she even thought all humans are potentially -- see, for instance, the comments you quoted on another thread about "The Missing Link").

She says in Galt's Speech something about the human having to be human by choice. She describes the choice as that between being human and being a suicidal animal, which she says has mostly been the choice in human history. And there are a number of places where she speaks of "subhumans." So I question that she did mean "simply [...] those characteristics that humans have in common." I think she meant something stronger, characteristics a fully human human has but that not all humans do have.

Ellen

In a letter to John Hospers (April 29, 1961), Rand wrote:

The standard "man's life" does not mean "just your or my or my family's life." It means: that which is proper to the life of man qua man—that which is proper to the life of every individual man qua individual man.

This usage, which is consistent with what Rand wrote elsewhere, indicates that MQM is an aspect of Rand's fundamental moral standard. As such, it clearly applies to all humans. The fact that many people do not live up to this standard is a different issue.

I don't care for the expression "man qua man"; for one thing, it can sound pretentious. I prefer "human nature" or similar terms. I almost never use MQM except when discussing the ideas of Rand and other Aristotelians.

Ghs

[Xray]

In a letter to John Hospers (April 29, 1961), Rand wrote:

The standard "man's life" does not mean "just your or my or my family's life." It means: that which is proper to the life of man qua man—that which is proper to the life of every individual man qua individual man.

This usage, which is consistent with what Rand wrote elsewhere, indicates that MQM is an aspect of Rand's fundamental moral standard. As such, it clearly applies to all humans. The fact that many people do not live up to this standard is a different issue.

Where is Rand's convincing evidence to support the claim that her fundamental moral standard applies to all humans?

Ghs: I don't care for the expression "man qua man"; for one thing, it can sound pretentious.

Doesn't "Life proper to man" sound pretentious too?

Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to speak of subatomic particles having "free will" should be very careful about criticizing others for using misleading language.

Ghs

Language often fails when it comes to putting in words complicated issues in natural science:

"The most difficult problem … concerning the use of the language arises in quantum theory. Here we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms." (Heisenberg, quoted in The Tao of Physics, p54)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Werner-Heisenberg-Max-Born.htm

Edited June 17, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Where is Rand's convincing evidence to support the claim that her fundamental moral standard applies to all humans?

Ghs: I don't care for the expression "man qua man"; for one thing, it can sound pretentious.

Doesn't "Life proper to man" sound pretentious too?

I don't know where Rand's "convincing evidence" is for anything. Rational argumentation is another thing entirely. Since I don't habitually reference Rand I won't try here. I will say that of course they apply "to all humans" when you deal with human essentialities. These are political-moral issues codified in rights' protections. All people have rights respecting their natures or the nature of man considered conceptually as opposed to just a particular man. And no, "life proper to man" does not sound pretentious, not to me. I imagine it might to someone who doesn't live a rational, productive and honorable life.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

In a letter to John Hospers (April 29, 1961), Rand wrote:

The standard "man's life" does not mean "just your or my or my family's life." It means: that which is proper to the life of man qua man—that which is proper to the life of every individual man qua individual man.

This usage, which is consistent with what Rand wrote elsewhere, indicates that MQM is an aspect of Rand's fundamental moral standard. As such, it clearly applies to all humans. The fact that many people do not live up to this standard is a different issue.

Where is Rand's convincing evidence to support the claim that her fundamental moral standard applies to all humans?

Rand addresses this issue in Ayn Rand Answers, Vol. 2: Silly Questions From Annoying People.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't care for the expression "man qua man"; for one thing, it can sound pretentious. I prefer "human nature" or similar terms. I almost never use MQM except when discussing the ideas of Rand and other Aristotelians.

George,

Heh.

I sense a kinship of spirit...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

The notion of essence does not fit particularly well with the physical-scientific approach. Aristotle and many of his ideas have been purged from science, which is why science succeeds and philosophy doesn't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

The notion of essence does not fit particularly well with the physical-scientific approach. Aristotle and many of his ideas have been purged from science, which is why science succeeds and philosophy doesn't.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't see the conflict between "genome" and "essence".

Actually, I imagine that if Ari were around today he'd be saying "I told you so!"

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

--Brant

[dan2100]

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

--Brant

I thought he meant the particular human genome, but even this is a bit of a construct too -- based on views of what is and isn't a gene now and current science.

Also, even within current understanding, a dead skin cell contains the genome, so is it a human? And any number of things might go wrong in development to churn out something that most wouldn't call human by looking at it. (This isn't to deny genetics or genomics, but I wouldn't quickly run to genetic or genomic reductionism.)

Edited June 18, 2010 by Dan Ust

[Dragonfly]

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

The essential characteristic of water is its molecular structure (H₂O). Does that imply that other substances don't have a molecular structure?

[Brant Gaede]

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

The essential characteristic of water is its molecular structure (H₂O). Does that imply that other substances don't have a molecular structure?

I was being sarcastic. To differentiate genome from genome you have to see how that actually manifests itself in a living organism in order to get some practical utility for a discussion of essential characteristics of a species. Man or chimp? To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't tell us we are language speaking, tool-making/using sometimes rational creatures who walk on two legs with a queer foot structure who likes face to face sex even when the female is not in heat, etc.

--Brant

[dan2100]

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

The essential characteristic of water is its molecular structure (H₂O). Does that imply that other substances don't have a molecular structure?

I was being sarcastic. To differentiate genome from genome you have to see how that actually manifests itself in a living organism in order to get some practical utility for a discussion of essential characteristics of a species. Man or chimp? To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't tell us we are language speaking, tool-making/using sometimes rational creatures who walk on two legs with a queer foot structure who likes face to face sex even when the female is not in heat, etc.

--Brant

This is good point. The genome is really more of a causal explanation of why humans have such and such traits. (Though that sort of reductionism seems a simplification: that "genes interact top bring about" is probably more accurate than "they control." Let's leave alone that genomics is in its infancy and genetics is only a little older.)

I initially thought Bob was trying to get at who the humans are.

[Dragonfly]

I was being sarcastic. To differentiate genome from genome you have to see how that actually manifests itself in a living organism in order to get some practical utility for a discussion of essential characteristics of a species. Man or chimp? To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't tell us we are language speaking, tool-making/using sometimes rational creatures who walk on two legs with a queer foot structure who likes face to face sex even when the female is not in heat, etc.

Such characteristics are just the equivalent of the melting point, boiling point, viscosity, density etc. of water. All very interesting of course, but they are ultimately the result of its molecular structure, which is the essential defining characteristic, even if we cannot in practice derive all those characteristics from first principles. The same for the human genome. "The rational animal" is not an essential characteristic, even if it is at the moment as far as we know a unique characteristic, but that is not the same.

[dan2100]

I was being sarcastic. To differentiate genome from genome you have to see how that actually manifests itself in a living organism in order to get some practical utility for a discussion of essential characteristics of a species. Man or chimp? To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical. Yeah, it's true, but it doesn't tell us we are language speaking, tool-making/using sometimes rational creatures who walk on two legs with a queer foot structure who likes face to face sex even when the female is not in heat, etc.

Such characteristics are just the equivalent of the melting point, boiling point, viscosity, density etc. of water. All very interesting of course, but they are ultimately the result of its molecular structure, which is the essential defining characteristic, even if we cannot in practice derive all those characteristics from first principles. The same for the human genome. "The rational animal" is not an essential characteristic, even if it is at the moment as far as we know a unique characteristic, but that is not the same.

If my memory's correct, Rand's view of what an essential characteristic is amounts to that characteristic that explains the most other characteristics. This is epistemological. The ontological side of this is the characteristic that explains the most mpas onto the one that causes the most. In the case of water, in the context of modern understanding, the molecular composition and structure explains all the other traits.

I believe Rand argued, in similar fashion, that "rational animal" explained the most other human traits.

[Xray]

Where is Rand's convincing evidence to support the claim that her fundamental moral standard applies to all humans?

Rand addresses this issue in Ayn Rand Answers, Vol. 2: Silly Questions From Annoying People.

The answer you gave is somewhat more entertaining than the usual references to "Galt's speech". Varietas delectat.

But you are of course acutely aware that the burden of proof is a crucial issue here. For claiming that one's "fundamental moral standard applies to all humans" - that's really something.

Therefore to a person who makes this claim, in case my "fundamental moral standard" is different, this would make me an 'immoral' being in his/her eyes. Is my inference correct?

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

--Brant

You seriously believe that other species than humans don't have genomes??

It has been suggested to use "human nature" instead of the pretentious-sounding "man qua man".

Imo giving it a try is well warranted, especially in the light of research about 'human nature' indicating that it is by no means against human nature to put others' interests before one's own since it is evolutinarily beneficial.

Quote from a 2007 thread on the topic:

In the past I had argued that altruism was inherent in man and how this view was supported by evolutionary biology/psychology and how game theory was used to support the notion that rather complex altruistic behaviours were evolutionarily beneficial and that altruism was as much a part of being human as selfishness.

Well, now we have the physical proof.

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052701056.html

We are behaviorally not that far from our chimp and bonobo cousins which is not surprising considering how many genes we all share.

What is the percentage of genes we primates share with our chimp and bonobo cousins?

Edited June 18, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

Yes, other species don't have genomes.

--Brant

You seriously believe that other species than humans don't have genomes??

It has been suggested to use "human nature" instead of the pretentious-sounding "man qua man".

Imo giving it a try is well warranted, especially in the light of research about 'human nature' indicating that it is by no means against human nature to put others' interests before one's own since it is evolutinarily beneficial.

You think that that is what I really meant or are you playing dumb to use me as a soapbox for your subsequent points?

--Brant

you can't get far with sarcasm, but you used to be able to get someplace

[BaalChatzaf]

What is the percentage of genes we primates share with our chimp and bonobo cousins?

> 95 %

The common ancestor of chimp, bonobo and man lived about six million years ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 18, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

You think that that is what I really meant or are you playing dumb to use me as a soapbox for your subsequent points?

How am I to know to which degree you are informed about genetics? I had not read your #18 post where you said your comment was sarcastic, but the purpose of a sarcastic statement "Yes, other species don't have genomes" eludes me. If you would you elaborate what you think is witty about that comment of yours in the context of this discussion?

To say "our essential characteristic" is our genome is a sophistical statement although I don't think Bob was trying to be sophistical.

I don't think so either. Imo Ba'al was attempting to examine the premise on which Rand's "man qua man" is based. The initial question he asked in the root post and the subsequen comment in a later post makes this quite clear. Ba'al nearly always goes for the premises.

Of the 6.2 billion humans on earth, how many fit the MQM category?

I was attempting to find out if MQM meant more than being a human. Apparently it doesn't, so it is a redundant misleading abuse of language.

This provocative comment opened the door for discussing human nature in more detail, and while Rand can't be blamed for not knowing at her time what biopsychological research was to find out later - it would interest me whether present-day Objectivsts ignore this research?

Since our biological survival program implies being organized in groups, we depend on each other and this dependence is reflected in social acts like e. g. grooming.

If so-called altruistic acts, as the experiment suggests (see post #22), do not suppress basic selfish urges but are basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable", this must have a profound effect on Objectivism which condemns altruism as despicable.

http://www.washingto...7052701056.html

I suppose that present day Objectivists, should they take notice of research in field at all, will try to integrate these findings by pointing out that so-called "acts of benevolence" are compatible with the Objectivist theory, and that their case against altruism is only directed against the doctrine "You must serve others first."

But if is true that Objectivism only attacks the ideology of altruism, then every act of serving others first which a person commits of his/her own decision (with no "ought to" involved) can't be labeled as altruistic by Objectivists.

I have served others first countless times, and it was not because I thought "I ought to". I did it for creating an antmosphere of harmony I desire, or sometimes simply because I didn't want to battle over something which to me was not worth the effort.

My position is that in each act of benevolence, self-interest on the part of the donor is involved as well. This is perfectly explainable since we as group beings need to cooperate.

I think I have to differ, George, about AR's thinking of all humans as fitting into her "man qua man" "in virtue of the fact that they are all human beings."

Agreed that the phrase is an abstraction, but I think she used it as an abstraction for the characteristics of a rational being, which she didn't think all humans are in actuality (and I wonder if she even thought all humans are potentially -- see, for instance, the comments you quoted on another thread about "The Missing Link").

She says in Galt's Speech something about the human having to be human by choice. She describes the choice as that between being human and being a suicidal animal, which she says has mostly been the choice in human history. And there are a number of places where she speaks of "subhumans." So I question that she did mean "simply [...] those characteristics that humans have in common." I think she meant something stronger, characteristics a fully human has but that not all humans do have.

Classifying men into categories like "suicidal animal" and "subhumans" - can Objectivism be called rational at all?

When Aristotelians speak of "man qua man," they mean human beings considered in terms of their essential characteristics.

Our genome is our essential characteristic. Without it we are not humans. With it we are.

The notion of essence does not fit particularly well with the physical-scientific approach. Aristotle and many of his ideas have been purged from science, which is why science succeeds and philosophy doesn't.

Whether in science or in philosophy, a theory will ultimately be flushed down the drain if its premises have definitely been exposed als false.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Xray