Is it possible that Ayn Rand was wrong about her theory that reason rules before emotion?? was Neitzche right?

[anthony]

Not "WHO defines?"

but, "WHAT defines?" Life defines. Existence defines. The nature of man defines.

"By what standard?" is a metaphysical question, I.e. the nature of existence.

"For what purpose?" is an epistemological + moral question. Which is your starting-

point, it seems.

I feel you will make a great stride forward if you grasp metaphysics, especially

the metaphysical nature of man (his autonomy, volition, etc.) It's the foundation of Objectivism.

[audiognostic]

the nature of man defines that to what standard? and what sets that standard??

to the standard of everybody living in peace? to the standard of one individual dominating over all others? to the standard of one individual sacrificing himself for others?

WHAT chooses that standard?

explain to me so I dont have to seek through thousands of pages of books

btw i believe any philosophy which seeks to explain everything, and create a perfect working order and ideal of some sort.. is by definition a "utopian philosophy" or at least as Nietzche says in this quote:

“man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.”]

which is technically neither "right" nor "wrong" but understandable since we all seek to achieve some sort of perfection which we desire, it gives us a goal to strive towards.. such is the very nature of life.. but one must still ask the above questions..

Edited September 28, 2012 by audiognostic

[anthony]

the nature of man defines that to what standard? and what sets that standard??

to the standard of everybody living in peace? to the standard of one individual dominating over all others? to the standard of one individual sacrificing himself for others?

WHAT chooses that standard?

explain to me so I dont have to seek through thousands of pages of books

btw i believe any philosophy which seeks to explain everything, and create a perfect working order and ideal of some sort.. is by definition a "utopian philosophy" or at least as Nietzche says in this quote:

“man needs to supplement reality by an ideal world of his own creation.”]

Nietzche got it right - if he's defining Utopianism. But it's wrong, iro Objectivism.

O'ism doesn't create, it identifies and uncovers reality, and then derives its methodology

from that.

Metaphysics->Epistemology->Morality->Individual rights.

I'm not going to try to save you doing the hard work; Rand puts it all better than I can.

Anyhow, you are not going to take my word for it - are you?!

But: "Peace"- "dominating"- "sacrifice" is still way off. These are values, or value-judgments relating to morality, individual rights and epistemology. Think about the fundamental nature of man. What he is universally.

This defines the "What?"

[audiognostic]

Thats what Im saying about reason and about Nietzhces statements..

That one may think he is "discovering" when one is merely creating..

For example Ayn Rand said :"the lives of other people are not yours to dispose of."

for all the reasoning she could have done to come up with that statement.. all one has to do is disagree with it.. and ask.. under what grounds is she right or wrong?

If the entirety of objectivism and its ethics is based on a non mystical theory of rational selfishness.. the assumptions are that non-use of force, honesty etc are best for us in the long term.. but there are plenty of examples historically of people being very successful and prosperous through use of force and dishonesty, if only they can get away with it. Therefore my example of if someone kills a little child and sells their organs to start a business and gets away with it and gets wealthy.. were they "morally right" because it was in their rational self interest? and if not.. under what premise? and who cares? If the only thing that matters is whats good qua man.. and not for others?

There are big problems with eliminating consciousness .. essentially what I think objectivism is trying to say is we are all computers, and if one only came up with some equations that were good enough one could predict the entire outcomes of our lives, our likes, dislikes, preferences, love interests, etc etc.... because equations are reason.. if it was not so.. then where do these outcomes come from? She did not live in the age of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, she lived in the age of basic reason, and Newtonian physics.. where everything seemed cut and dry and simple, but really our minds are quantum mechanical processes which do not work that way.. she might have thought it "mystical" but really it is just quantum mechanical.. things still work in ways in which we dont understand, and she did not have the entire world figured out..

For example, lets say a man is born, and he enjoys being an architect, but hates being a chemist.. what reasoned processes go behind that? You cant say it is simply because one is better at one than the other.. since personally, I am great at math, but it kills me to do it.. and I prefer to be an artist, which took me much longer to perfect than math.. so according to my rational self interest, I should quit art and become a mathematician or practice literature since that comes much easier to me and is better for me in terms of easy prosperity and that should make me happy? If she said "it is based on how much you enjoy what".. then that would make decisions based off emotions and consciousnesses again.. If all things could be calculated through reason, social political influences etc.. then the communists would be right in their culture.. they could simply "calculate" which career was best for a person by the time they are a child, and send them there.. and like other cultures they could simply "calculate" what kind of person one would fall in love with and pre arrange their marriage.. and everything would be great and dandy.. but it does not work that way..

Thats the whole criticism Nietzche had of "logicians".. that they thought they knew everything through logic.. then he would poke holes in their statements..

The utopian ideal I think that objectivism makes through rationality and by which it judges right or wrong.. is not that of equality, but that of equal opportunity.. Where everybody could have the best lives for themselves, and the best lives for society together in balance.. as long as one played by all the rules.. which are supposedly created purely out of selfishness.. but as I have said.. many historical examples show that by breaking those rules creatively one can effectively prosper more than if one keeps them.. so who is there to keep people playing by the rules? And why? And what gives them the right? by what moral standard? In the end it still comes down to me to be a code of "whats good for the mass of society" as a utopian vision.. even though it claims to be whats good for the self.. if you went into pure self interest you could ditch much of the ethical code and work to become a king through force.. if happiness is prosperity, the kings sure had it back in the day.. living in palaces of gold, doing as they wished, having hundreds of women, partying all the time and having much leisure time.. etc.. through force, coercion and dishonesty, having everybody else serve them, and taking the lives of who they wished.. THAT is true rational self interest..

[Xray]

I dont think one can reasonably say "it is because we do not want to do what we would not like to be done unto ourselves".. since that is a value which must be taught and ingrained in us, proving that it is not inherent or instinctual..

I think the 'Golden Rule' is one of the most reasonable principles when it comes to human interaction.

And it does have a biological basis: the human capacity for cooperation and the capacity for empathy. So-called 'mirror neurons' probably play a crucial role.

[anthony]

All this thought, and you're still skipping stones on the surface of Objectivism.

Here, on this forum, there's a wealth of knowledge you can access.

(For advanced academics, the David Kelley and Stephen Boydstun Corners.)

Also, when you've finished VoS, read it again: there is radical thinking in it that is

too concentrated to take in at once. Please believe me, rational selfishness is a huge concept.

(You said somewhere you came prepared to learn - with an open mind - but you are not going to learn by making constant assertions, then contesting anybody's replies..)

[audiognostic]

I am not so much making assertions as I am questioning things..

I will finish that book

Meanwhile.. rationalize this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOQ1UgDg5OU

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pope,

There's a way to do Objectivism without buying into the utopia part.

That's what I believe most people do who claim to benefit greatly from Rand's ideas.

It's what I do.

There's a fundamental division in philosophy that is not too much talked about. One school claims man is perfectible (with the right ideological programming) and the other claims that man is as he is and the role of philosophy is to help him enhance his life, but he has too many moving parts to cram his entire existence into an ideological mold created by another and still achieve his full individual potential.

You find both approaches in people who are attracted to Objectivism. Guess which one I am?

If you read through some older threads, you will constantly see me say that OL is not part of any movement to save the world. It is a discussion place where people can work through their thinking by interacting with others who share similar interests.

Taken like that, Objectivism is extremely valuable and effective in its positive influence on a person's life--his individual precious non-repeatable life (and that goes for the critics of Objectivism). Those who are interested in saving the world in the name of Rand or reason do not care for this approach and, generally, they like telling other people what to do more than they like examining their own motives and shortcomings and virtues. Oh... they are interested in self-improvement, but by way of improving others as their main focus. If that sounds like a contradiction, it is.

Michael

[audiognostic]

Nice.. I agree with 100% of what you just said..

I would generally come from the same mindset as you then.

Because much the theory behind Objectivism is a very valuable life tool in many ways.

One thing which is rather silly about Rands personal assertions about objectivism, is that everything she believes she knows which founded the theory of objectivism is the end all -be all. Calling her complete theory "objectivism" calling people who dont believe everything she says essentially fools and irrational.. And calling every philosopher who does not agree with her "wrong".. This is all rather silly and what I believe many people refer to when they call her intolerant etc..

I kind of see Ayn Rand like this:

Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."

I think the "concept" of objectivism, and the search for rational truth is a great one, and many of the theories which Rand presented are already great and form a very solid foundation for the entire concept..

However, to believe that everything can be explained through reason.. all of life only exists in reason, and Objectivism already knows everything, and Ayn Rand IS objectivism.. is rather silly..

If you get where I'm coming from

I believe we know what we know in the context that we know it.. If you do not have the full context, ask all the right questions, and do not know everything.. by definition, not knowing ALL the material facts of a situation, creates the strong possibility of not being able to fully rationalize everything 100% correctly.

So the way I take it is kind of like a quote I heard once, apparently it is from the Torah

Who is wise? He who learns from all people

And combine it with this quote

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense

And combine it with an element of "screw it you cant take forever, dont always think, just do,"-Risk taking - which comes partially from my philosophy in agreement with Nietzche that Instinct works.. and instinct and a sort of "mystical guidance" is in fact real if properly identified as i have attempted to do in the above posts..

This is how I live my life and why and in which context so far I like objectivism

In other words .. dont just believe EVERYTHING you hear..

Or as I also like to say.. dont throw out the baby with the bath water... dont keep the bathwater with the baby..

And the way I think is, in rationality, I believe I know Im right, until I am proven wrong.. This is how I live my life.. and I take calculated risk like that.. If i didnt do that.. I might end up living a pretty insane and confused life like Nietzche himself.... part of my scientific mindset is that i WANT to be proven wrong, because I am less concerned about holding a dogma, but more concerned with finding the truth

In the end I believe objectivism goes for a search of rational objective truth.. as far as we can take it.. I dont think the fundamental assertion that ALL things are "objective" and "rational" to be true.. So objectivism gives a great foundational philosophy good for many whos personal values and premises happen to support such an idea.. and gives them a fairly good framework and starting point from where to work it.. So it is a constant search for truth as far as it can be found through reason.. It is not a closed, pre determined system where everything already spoken by Rand is the word of God.. There are still many questions to be asked, and many answers to be said.. Some of which I hope some others may solidly address or take a stab at from my previous posts, as long as they may be.

As my personal basic premise as far as I know it to be now.. I believe that not EVERYTHING is objective, and not EVERYTHING is subjective, and not EVERYTHING is necessarily either one.. there may be plenty of stuff which just doesnt make sense and never will..

[audiognostic]

I just looked up axiomatic concepts in the lexicon..

This is interesting..

She says "existance" and "identity" are axiomatic concepts.. which is interesting because in my other post about emotion vs. reason.. this is exactly what I came to as the basis of life itself..

However my whole point there that what Nietzche got right, and where Rand I believe was mistaken in a way.. is WHAT is identity? and if identity cannot be broken down then there is no reasoned explanation from it.. And identity in itself as I see it is SEPARATE from existence .. and is defined by more than where one physically stands.. Identity can be part of somebodys emotional process, what they inherently like and dislike, what careers they will prefer to go in or not, what will "vibe" with them and what doesnt.. the essential value decisions they make on how much they value certain people or not, what makes them happy and what doesnt.. I believe that is all under the function of "identity" based on my seeming inability to figure out how it could be broken down into any erason.... or what someone like Nietzche would refer to as "instinct" etc.. for which Rand criticized him as being a mystic and said this statement:

Quote

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

If I am correct in my assertions, this statement, and therefore possibly a large part of her core ideology was wrong on the basis of irony.. that reason comes from identity.. since identity does not come or can be broken down with reason.. and Identity is where a large part of emotions, and personal value judgments actually come from... so therefore a person is almost entirely FUNDAMENTALLY guided by "emotions" or "instinct" or whatever else kind of title you would put on those value-judgement parts of his identity which just ARE and are so far explainable with reason..

For example: how much we contribute to others is based on value judgments, which is where the emotion of how much we love them/care for them comes from.. therefore we contribute to others by how much we value them vs other things.. but the question in this case becomes.. WHERE do those essential value judgments come from? I do not believe it can come from purely physical self interest to ones own life.. such as.. I love my father as long as he provides me money, after which I will not love him anymore.. If I judge somebody based on how much pleasure they bring into my life.. that essential judgement is in itself based on a consciousness-centered EMOTIONAL value.. which is SUBJECTIVE..

And therefore comes my conclusion that people do not live on the basis of reason or rationality ALONE, and that in this statement

Quote

Quote

Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions. The joke is on ... on them

the joke might be on her..

If all things are based on value judgments, and value judgments are based on irreducible "emotion" "identity" "instinct" "free will" etc... and all reason stems from value judgments..

Therefore Nietzches claim I believe that no 1 philosopher can be "right" nor can they be "wrong" in the sense of their value judgments and the basis of their philosophies.. since those philosophies come from a set of value judgments themselves, and value judgments are a part of "identity"..

As he said:

Quote

“What provokes one to look at all philosophers half suspiciously, half mockingly, is not that one discovers again and again how innocent they are, how often and how easily they make mistakes and go astray, in short, their childishness and childlikeness, but that they are not honest enough in their work, although they all make a lot of virtuous noise when the problem of truthfulness is touched even remotely. They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic (as opposed to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and doltish, and talk of ‘inspiration’), while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of ‘inspiration’, most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract, that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact”

A good analogy for this is the music program which I often work with is called "Reason" as making electronic music is an extremely logical and clinically reasoned procedure.. however the "idea" the "emotion" the "inspiration" aka the "value judgments" which I put in are in essense part of identity and "mystical" in origin.. and then I use reason to achieve them, which I then enjoy when my value judgements are achieved through the process of emotion again.. so all things begin in "identity" "emotion" "free will" and other mystical concepts.. then are achieved through reason.. then are translated back into a more reasoned definition of emotion..

Which is interesting, because if Im right, Rand was wrong in criticizing Nietzche as others as "mystical fools"

How does one decide their favorite color is green? how does one decide to like star shapes over triangle shapes? etc..??

For example, my favorite color is black, you could argue that that could have been because I saw something which I liked black as a child, but why did I like it? "black" never came to save my life or feed me.. the only answer I could come to is "I like it because I do".. so.. whats up with that?

Irreducible parts of "identity"? "instinct" "mystical origin"?

[audiognostic]

the day somebody explains to me why I like the sound "pow wub pow wub" more than I like the sound "pink pink boink pink"..

And why if i guide my music off emotional determinations and I'm satisfied with the result, why its wrong for me to live some of my life in the same manner..

I will stop believing in primacy of consciousness and being against reasoned - determinism

[audiognostic]

.

[Xray]

The method I have devised to calculate which type of emotion each feeling falls into basically discovers whether the felt emotion is genuinely instinctual, or programmed/mis-attributed in some way. And whether one emotional drive will cancel out a greater emotional drive in the process..

<...>

In other words I have come to believe that our core values themselves are determined essentially by our first order emotions, and objective rationality is simply the process through which we achieve that emotion..

Our emotions are closely connected to our needs, and 'working one's way up' in a philosophical discussion from the basis ('What exactly are man's fundamental needs?') makes a lot of sense imo. Just as in building a house, one starts by laying the foundation.

I think one can adopt the Objectivist principle "man's need for survival" as a basic standard for any ethics. It is easy to see why we would call a philosophy 'unethical' that would advocate depriving humans of the essentials necessary for their survival (water, food, shelter, etc).

You seem to be the type who prefers 'devising his own method' (as opposed to looking for a complete philopsophy that explains it all). Such a philosophy does not exist, but what does exist are 'thought gems' by various philosophers which can be integrated into one's personal philosophy.

In the past few days, you have posted a cascade of challenging questions and interesting thoughts here, and although it occasionally comes across as being written in somewhat in 'overdrive' , imo it also indicates a very vivid and alert mind at work. I'm convinced that you really do want to know and find out more.

A lot of what you have written is about our 'hierachy of values'. We humans are valuing, goal-seeking entities, and every choice we make implies the preference of one specific value that tops all others at the moment of choice. Whether it is about trivial things like choosing chocolate over vanilla ice cream or about matters of life and death, the same principle is at work.

[audiognostic]

Thank you for the complements.

I would argue that first order emotional needs are not simply logically related to ones survival..

My first order desire to not kill children and sell their organs.. even once.. whether I can get away with it or not.. has nothing to do with promoting my survival... If Im 100% sure I can get away with it and make a lot of money... I STILL dont want to do it.

My first order desire to be a musician instead of a literature teacher.. has NOTHING to do directly and logically with my survival...

My first order desire to take care of my parents.. even if they are not taking care of me in any material, non -emotional way.. and even if they stop funcitoning emotionally.. is a first order desire which has NOTHING to do directly and logically with my personal livelyhood..

Therefore comes the role of so called "mystical" emotions in being tools of cognition and guiding ones life..

One can push them aside... and attempt to live by reason alone.. but unless they are satisfied.. one will never truly be happy.. whether it makes any sense or not.

If the degree of thought and reasoning a man incorporates into his life causes him to become less effective and less happy rather than more effective and more happy.. reason and logic in fact becomes a DISEASE of the mind rather than an assistant