bmacwilliam

South West ____________. Fill in the blank. Bob

I'll take your word for it that you're a nutcase. I see no reason to disagree. "Nor do I feel the urge to respond." Well one of your personalities just did. Bob

"Life is a prerequisite for pursuing any other goal." False. Bob

No I'm not. Go back and read what I wrote. Darrell OK. You wrote: "The fact that man's life is his proper standard of value is an objective fact which can be ascertained on the basis of his nature as a human being. " That statement is absolutely demonstrably false in the face of all evidence after about 1948 or so. It is does not make any sense at all for me to continue to discuss anything with someone so out of touch with reality. Actually, I take that back. Darwin got it long before then. Bob

Need I remind you of things she said when she was young? Bob

This always strikes me as funny. Either ethics are objective or they are not. There cannot be middle ground. But now, if the situation is such, 'proper' ethics are malleable? Emergency? Who says? How is 'emergency' determined? It's arbitrary. Isn't it a continuum? A glass of water may quench a mild thirst, or save a life, or anywhere in between. Where does 'emergency' start, end? Arbitrary. The bottom line is that you're simply admitting that Objectivist ethics are only partially valid. It's like saying a math equation (an objective example) is kinda, sorta, correct sometimes. How can you have Objective ethics, but only sometimes? Hmmm.... Bob

Fine, I'll stop with that. But remember Michael that we're dealing with somebody who actually thought that she really had no worthy adversaries and that all dissent was 'dishonourable'. You can ask me to knock it off with the insults, and that's fair and I will. But do not ask me to believe for one second she wasn't off her rocker. Reality again, sorry... Bob

No way. She was picking and choosing certain aspects of human nature and behaviour and clearly ignoring others. Physiology had nothing to do with it. That's the starting point of my tabula rasa objections. There is a long list of highly heritable character and personality traits. There is no Objectivist defense against this other than unfalsifiability again. But maybe I'll do a little politics first. Dragonfly wrote: "That's fine with me, but the point is that Objectivism proclaims loudly that its system is in accordance with man's nature, only picking those aspects of human nature that are desirable in their eyes (declaring them to be the essential aspects) and ignoring all the other ones. You can't have your cake and eat it too: either you don't base your ethics on human nature, which is described by evolutionary biology, or you do base your ethics on human nature, but then you have to take all its aspects into account." Very very well put. With that, the very foundations of Rand's ethics have been demonstrated to be insufficient at best - at BEST, and therefore her ethical system is dead as a doornail. Bob

Her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny? What academic scrutiny? --Brant Are you serious with that question? Bob

Answered that on Jeff K's thread. Bob

What are you talking about? "Bob thinks the purpose of our lives is to perpetuate the species. " Evolution has shaped and created the very concept of 'purpose'. Reproduction is the engine of evolution but it is gene replication that is the core concept. This results in much more complex motivations and behaviours than simple reproduction and not just in humans. For crying out loud, if sex was just about reproduction, why on earth would pregnant women still engage in sexual activity? "He thinks the purpose of sex is reproduction." Only one of many purposes, but yeah reproduction is on the list. Bob

Let me dissect this a bit: It's way too simple to say that evolution is all about reproduction. It's more correct (probably too simple as well) to say it's about gene replication. There's important differences. If I want my genes to reproduce and survive when life was much more difficult in the caves, my best strategy would be to love and vigilantly protect my wife and children. The other side of the coin is that men and women have different investment levels and therefore somewhat different reproductive attitudes (but not that different). That's a whole new discussion though. A woman has a very similar incentive to reproduce with a more 'fit' male while still in a stable relationship as a man does with another female. The obvious difference is men have more or less infinite reproductive potential, women do not. Therefore women are more selective, but that's the only major difference I see. The value of monogamy is about the same for the genders and that's why it exists. Happiness next. Evolution indeed DOES care about happiness - a whole lot. Bob

There's an error in your thinking. First, there should be no need to justify your wish to do this work in terms of Objectivism and ensure there's no sacrifice involved. Furthermore, saying that it's not sacrifice because you would 'love' or want to do it just introduces unfalsifiability into the equation and the discussion of whether something is selfish or altruistic becomes meaningless. In reality, like most or all of us, you do feel a desire to help those less fortunate at a cost (an acceptable cost) to yourself. This is natural, and commendable (and I'll explain why later hopefully). This DOES NOT mean this (altruism) has to be the guidepost of your life. We can and do admire altruism AND individual self-centred achievment at the same time often in the same person! It is not either/or. Both are 'good' and have their place. There is no dichotomy. Bob

Victor wrote: "The administration’s failure to note the easily available evidence of the importance of Ayn Rand’s system—and what her system actually stands for---is so clearly a demonstration in hostility and dishonesty. This type of dishonesty and philosophical corruption is all too typical, and not merely restricted to McGill University. " There's a simpler explanation. Hostility? Yes. Dishonesty? No. Why the hostility? Maybe, just maybe, her philosophy doesn't hold up to academic scrutiny - there's the basis of dismissal. Maybe there's plenty of grounds for the hostility too. Victor wrote: "What has really driven opposing philosophers up the wall has been less her individualism or egoism than her claim to certainty. Vital to structure—and Objectivism is its promise of route to knowledge—real knowledge, certain knowledge.” I couldn’t agree more with this assessment. Bingo!! That's why she pisses me off as well Victor. She's wrong on a whole bunch of things yet considered dissent 'dishonourable' - her word. Recall during her interview with Donahue that she said has never encountered a dissenter who wasn't dishonourable. She basically said she never encountered a worthy adversary (or something to that effect). This attitude permeates everything she wrote, and it's at best difficult and often sickening for me to read, and at worst dangerous to the vulnerable. This is classic, textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She was highly intelligent, but mentally ill beyond the shred of a doubt. That's reality. <sarcasm> Yeah, it's a real big mystery why academics don't want anything to do with her. Maybe there's a world-wide Philosophical conspiracy against truth. Yeah, yeah, that must be it. </sarcasm> Oh, and there's a good argument for the Nazi angle too BTW. Victor wrote: "Today’s students do not learn the important ideas were discovered by Western intellectuals—such as free market economics, individualism, limited government, the role of reason in history. Students aren’t taught that western wealth has improved our lives dramatically, and that this wealth is the result of the fact that capitalism made it possible, and that the root cause of it all is human reason." Funny Victor, I attended two Canadian universities (not McGill though) as well as Harvard and I can say that I indeed was taught exactly that above. Now, that's not to say there wasn't dissenting views and all sorts of whacky profs too, but that's what higher education is all about, freedom of thought. Bob

Bob, If you are going to make this kind of assertion, once again, it is very important to see if you are talking about the same thing Rand did. Michael Yes, fair enough. Before I dig into my political thoughts I'll spend some time defining terms first. Bob

I have read Jung - quite some time ago though. Lately I've been reading Stephen (Steven?) Pinker's stuff and it makes a lot of sense to me. "How the Mind Works" was very interesting. He paints a very compelling picture of how human morality and other behaviour is largely biologically/evolutionary based. His other book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" is next on my list. Bob

Brant said: "Objectivism the philosophy for reality is what you make of it not by examining Objectivism, save perhaps the epistemology and for comparative reference, but reality." Very well put and wise! I like it! Bob

Excellent question! LF Capitalism is not ideal (although we must define what ideal would be) in just about any sense. Rand got many of these related ideas wrong as well. I do believe in freedom, but very different from Rand's. My vision is considerably different. I didn't intend to go there (yet) but I could I guess. Bob

Actually yes, I agree. That's an equally valid way of looking at the issue. We have a choice on what we wish to value. My point in a nutshell, and I believe I have shown, is that if we don't have a choice (objective ethics) of what to base our values on, rather we have one chosen for us by Rand (individual life), then this choice is indeed a wrong one according to her own reasoning. <speculation> Rand needed objective ethics based on selfishness or her politics don't work. She couldn't have that. </speculation> "I think both points of view or ideas are valid as reflected in, say, one person, myself." I can buy that. Values are not static. Bob

"Bob is saying that Rand's focus on the individual, the rational egoism, is flawed because of where evolution has brought us. " Yes, but another way of saying "where evolution has brought us" is simply "what we are". Rand is wrong because of what we are. Or, Rand is wrong because reality contradicts her ideas. "And from where it appears he's coming from, I can definitely see him going after tabula rasa. I think that will be a much easier argument, I consider it a no-brainer." Oh yeah. "This one here is looking apples and oranges to me right now." I agree if apples=reality and oranges=Rand's fantasy. Bob

See, it's a mistake to assume one's life is the standard of value. You must abandon evolution to accept this. Man evolved. Evolution is driven by GENE replication, not INDIVIDUAL survival. It is too simple, and simply wrong, to assume that maximal individual survival equals maximal gene reproduction. It doesn't work that way. Evidence totally backs me up on this one. Life is a high priority sure, but from an evolutionary perspective (which I'll call reality) this is simply not always the case - it's more complex than that, much more. Only in Rand's world (fantasy) is life at the top and always at the top. Bob

I'm glad it's simple to you, but it's not true. The primary moral obligation is based on Rand's simplistic view of what man is, and the erroneous assumption that an individuals life is his highest value. As I posted from MSK's link: "Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e. who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism." That's the truth, or at least closer to it than Rand's. Reason demands that altruism cannot be dismissed. Highest value? No, I won't go that far. I think it's an error to assume that one's highest value has to be 1) Static 2) Singular (influenced by only a single priority- individual life) Humans are more complex, especially socially. Oh, and Rand does dismiss the concept of society. From Donahue's show she says at one point "Society does not exist. " Doesn't get any more clear than that. Also, she admits she assumes that dissent from her views are 'dishonourable'. Ugh, hard to watch. To sum up, Rand's line of reasoning should end in man's highest value being an ongoing struggle between competing egoism (his life) and altruism (other's interests). In other words, he must often choose between an obligation to himself and to others. Sometimes the choice is clear, sometimes it's not. Such is the nature of being human. Bob

I guess I wouldn't say 'conclusive' either yet. But digging into this, more and more, the hard-wired altruistic tendencies seem hard to deny. You say 'good' evidence, I'd say 'damn good'. When you can mathematically show that altruism can become pro-species even when it's anti-individual, it seems powerful to me. From the link that MSK posted: "Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e. who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism." Bob

Likes: The central role of logic/reason and reality. Dislikes: The foolish conclusions drawn from not adhering to the above principles. Bob

I understand what you're saying. I'm going from memory here, but maybe what she said regarding society was with repect to rights. This is what I'm criticising here. This idea of dismissing all societal obligations out of hand. There is strong evidence against this view. To say that she rejected society as a 'concept' isn't quite right. I tried to clarify that. Bob