PSYCHOLOGY TERMS


HERTLE

Recommended Posts

Studying sea creatures, reproducing with children, are values to whomever objectively values them. Acts of value subtend from an individual's self-value, he and his life is the context which makes them come to be. (Keeping a "hierarchy of values" derived from one's own valued existence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the ending of "Deep Impact" with Robert Duvall and Tia Leone. In the movie, space explorers return when an asteroid threatens earth, and use their rocket to blow up the bigger of two asteroids which kills all on board. All on board are able to say goodbye to their families, which is extremely sad to see.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ditto for your species. Without it you have nothing.

If you can't reproduce with any other living thing, then you certainly don't have reproduction. I wouldn't say you have nothing though. You still have your particular life.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...that doesn't mean one has to reproduce as one of the ultimate values to be rational. Just like one does not have to survive at all costs to be rational (such as sacrificing one's integrity in a manner that cannot be fixed to survive.)

True. I'm not making survival or reproduction the standard. I once argued for the rationality of captured spies committing suicide. There are cases where controlling the time and manner of your death through suicide might be the rational choice. Heck, Galt was prepared to off himself to save Dagny from torment. Rand understood this.

That said, if your species were in danger of going extinct, you should  seriously consider making survival and reproduction your top goals, if only to help ensure your own long-term happiness. You must consider that in old age you will need more and more help from the younger, fitter generation. You might have a store of property or knowledge to trade, but what good will that do you if there's nobody to trade with when you're declining in physical capacity.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...one cannot work for eliminating the family (parents and kids) as a form of organization in society and be rational.

I agree. This is why I find persuasive those black economists who argue that welfare programs destroy black families by favoring single mothers.

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For example, gay people do not reproduce, but, to be rational, they should be aware of the species ramifications of their condition and they should value--on a fundamental level--coexisting with people, a large number of people, in fact--who do reproduce.

Lots of people don't reproduce, including lots of straights. Over-reproduction can be harmful at the species-level, just like under-reproduction can cause problems. 

 

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This didn't stop him from hitting on me at times, though, the asshole. :) After I would tell him to knock it off, we would laugh about it.

Ha! I had a buddy in high school who was gay. We were even roommates after college for a time. He fell in love with me, which made the friendship awkward, since I'm 100% straight and had to convince him that he had no chance with me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm not making survival or reproduction the standard.

MisterSwig,

Here we have to settle on what we are talking about.

You used the word "biology" as your standard above for one context. But when you use the term "biology" as a fundamental, you have to make survival and reproduction your standard, at least for the species.

That's reality, not an opinion.

No species. No individuals.

But I go a bit further. I find biology cannot be eliminated from human nature in order to choose a code of values. So without biology, I find arguments about human ethics irrelevant to humans as a universal.

So I find this kind of image not fundamental:

Quote

... if your species were in danger of going extinct, you should  seriously consider making survival and reproduction your top goals, if only to help ensure your own long-term happiness. You must consider that in old age you will need more and more help from the younger, fitter generation. You might have a store of property or knowledge to trade, but what good will that do you if there's nobody to trade with when you're declining in physical capacity.

The Law of Identity is fundamental to reality, not the trader principle, which only applies to human action as a guide for exercising volition. (Morality being a code of values to guide man's choices, right?)

Rand phrased the kind of distinction I am making as the metaphysical versus the manmade. In fact, that was the title of one of her Ayn Rand Letters.

You said a person at least has his own life if the species dies out. You are making a huge presupposition: that the species would only die off gradually. So what you said applies to that situation. But not one where, say, a bioweapon kills off everyone.

This makes it clear to me that to live properly as a human being, Law of Identity-wise, means having "species values" built into the ethics. This is not collectivism. This is Law of Identity.

Ethics-wise, there are no choices available to any individual human once the human species dies out. Why? Because there are no individual humans.

You can't be an individual human and not be a human at the same time.

That's essentially biology.

So focusing ethics entirely on individuals and ignoring the fact that each individual is an individual human being is, taken to the extreme, not a universal ethics. It's a good recipe for taking care of oneself in general, though.

Here's another species value: sharing and storing knowledge. This is a species-wide practice that allows individuals much greater freedom and individual benefits than living in ignorance does. Here in the USA, for example, people don't grow up choosing whether they should learn English or simply not learn any language at all. After all, qua individual, a language does not exist in nature. Also, a growing child cannot not learn to speak a language. It has to learn a language. And it has to learn it in the beginning using the method primates use the most: imitation. So a growing baby imitates the people who take care of it and cannot choose not to. Once again, Law of identity.

Species-wise, language only exists because the species evolved to make this a characteristic of human nature. Other species have not developed this, although that proposition is false when we are talking about basic low-level communication. (Communication is a species characteristic. If you read Howard Bloom, you see this applies to even the simplest of single-cell creatures. Communication is one of the ways species evolve.)

I could go on and on and on, but my point is that without correctly identifying what a human being is, including being a member of the human species, one can only develop an ethics that is incomplete. Normally, when people make a point like this, they say it invalidates Rand or Objectivist ethics. But that is a false dichotomy (individual versus species as the only choice) and not my way of thinking at all. Ethics, including Objectivist ethics, can be added to in order to include what got left out.

Whether we want to continue calling it Objectivist is an issue I left behind a long time ago. That is merely a power-struggle thing, which is who gets to be the guru or the true follower of the guru and make/enforce the rules. In my view, I'm fine calling adding species values to Rand's formulation Objectivist or calling it something else if that is unclear. Just so long as the concept is communicated. The rest, to me, is bullshit--people NOT using their reason. :) 

I have no problem at all keeping reason as a primary value and epistemological standard for exercising volition. I just don't hold it as the ONLY primary value or standard of action. Not when I correctly identify (though observation) what a human being is.

In other words, I am not interested in an ethics that ignores the species, or worse, uses a dying species as a primary for testing its validity. I do not, on any level, think that is a good idea.

But I do think reason is a great both as idea and evolved capacity, for individuals and for the species. 

Metaphor-wise, I don't think a glass half full or a glass half empty is the only way a glass can be used. I want to fill it up, then drink.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I once argued for the rationality of captured spies committing suicide. There are cases where controlling the time and manner of your death through suicide might be the rational choice. Heck, Galt was prepared to off himself to save Dagny from torment.

MisterSwig,

I want to throw a monkey-wrench in some of the implications of this.

I contend that a choice of such suicide, at root, is to preserve a species value, not an individual value (except, maybe, the choice itself as a value). After all, an individual cannot value anything if it no longer exists.

Even Galt did not want to live in a world where human nature (the species) could only exist deformed, meaning individuals like him could not value to the limit of their potential.

And what defined that potential? Human nature. Such potential is not chosen by whim.

Human values belong to human nature, not to random choices made by an individual thing cut off from a species.

That whole issue is a premise that needs checking.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 5/20/2021 at 10:43 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You used the word "biology" as your standard above for one context. But when you use the term "biology" as a fundamental, you have to make survival and reproduction your standard, at least for the species.

That's reality, not an opinion.

No species. No individuals.

I'm not sure what you mean by making a biological standard for the species. If there were only one man left in the world, he would need a standard of value based on his biology, but that standard could not include reproduction because there would be no women with whom to reproduce. Are you saying that since there are women and men in existence, their biological standard must include reproduction?

My general take is that a man's standard is a complex of physical, biological and mental factors. This includes physical pleasure, biological health, and rational knowledge. I took a stab at formulating the idea a few years ago on the OO forum. It's probably evolved a bit since then.

Regarding biology, having a normal set of humans (species group) to observe must be necessary to formulate the abstract standard for humans. But reproduction couldn't be part of that abstract standard, since reproduction is objectively impossible (or even fatal) for some women. It's not a value to all humans. And the "species" is not an actual individual to whom a standard could apply. Reproduction is a value to those for whom it's objectively good or beneficial, because it satisfies (or leads to the satisfaction of)  the need for pleasure or health or knowledge, or some combo of such universal values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

My general take is that a man's standard is a complex of physical, biological and mental factors.

That got me thinking about the Tom Hank's movie "Castaway" when he begins to take stock of his situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 9:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

If there were only one man left in the world...

MS,

This is called context-shifting and it happens all the time in today's culture. (Including in O-Land.)

If we are talking about species and innate standards of value and you posit the situation of only one man left in the world, the species question is moot.  We are no longer talking about human beings or the human species, but instead about one human being in an emergency situation. After the man dies, there is no more species. No more species, no more individuals. No more human values. Pffffft... all gone...

So how on earth can that be called biology (as a standard of value) in any terms except the biology of extinction? And a biology of extinction, in my opinion, is a piss-poor standard of value for any system except, maybe, for some loopy environmentalists who want the human species to become extinct (but they never practice what they preach :) ).

Even Rand talked about "lifeboat situations" as a catastrophic exception, not the norm, for setting standards of morality. And, if I remember correctly, in Rand's view, in emergency situations where it is not possible for humans to live and act as humans, morality basically goes out the window. It becomes up to each person to use the best of his/her thinking to make impossible choices.

Think about Sophie's choice. Which child of hers should she choose to die so the other can live? What is the moral principle involved to guide that choice? The answer is there is none.

Or your situation, the last man on earth. If such a man commits suicide, would that be evil? Good? Biological? Suppose he gets so depressed from loneliness, living each day is torture. Is he then duty-bound to use reason to keep surviving because someone said his life is the standard of value? That doesn't sound Objectivist to me.

When I imagine that situation, I just don't see good or evil. Such a man is condemned to live as a metaphysical freak with respect to his surroundings, no longer as a human being. Morality no longer applies. There is no universal principle or code of values to guide his choices in that situation. He will simply endure for as long as he can survive or for as long as he can stand it. And he will most likely succumb to some danger or other in his environment. The end.

In that sense, I just don't see humans as severed from their species, much less use that notion as my biological standard of value.

The human species exists. As the lady said, "A is A." And each human individual is part of that species. That is not up for debate. It just is. Rand used different words for something like this. She called it "the given."

Have you noticed that all rational standards of value have their root in "the given"? This is important. A standard of value is not a syllogism at root. It is not a projection. It is not an argument. It is a way of measuring, meaning that comparison is involved. A standard of value derives from observing and identifying what exists. All else comes after that.

No individual I know of exists as the last human on earth. How would one observe that anyway? 

The only way is storytelling. Fiction.

Do you really want to derive your notion of biology from fiction instead of reality?

That's not a quip.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or your situation, the last man on earth. If such a man commits suicide, would that be evil? Good? Biological? Supposed his gets so depressed from loneliness, living each day is torture. Is he then duty-bound to use reason to keep surviving because someone said his life is the standard of value? That doesn't sound Objectivist to me.

Makes me think of this passage from OPAR:
 

"...I want to mention first that suicide is sometimes justified, according to Objectivism. Suicide is justified when man's life, owing to circumstances outside of a person's control, is no longer possible; an example might be a person with a painful terminal illness, or a prisoner in a concentration camp who sees no chance of escape. In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: 'Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 5:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For example, gay people do not reproduce, but, to be rational, they should be aware of the species ramifications of their condition and they should value--on a fundamental level--coexisting with people, a large number of people, in fact--who do reproduce. Taking other elements of human nature into account, that means lots of normal families as neighbors or who live near.

Incidentally, this is not me making prescriptions for gay people.

"i'm the only gay in the village!"

Being a minority in relation to a straight majority, having straight parents and siblings, living in a larger community ... being aware of the "condition" ... tells you nothing about an individual's "should." If there is an objective value (for the species) in parentage and parenting, if there is a responsibility that goes beyond simple reproduction, then one can ask "can a gay or lesbian raise children to adulthood?"

Surrogacy, adoption, test-tube embryos, gay sperm + lesbian ova, there are plenty of ways for folks of minority sexualities to be parents and to fulfill their responsibilities to their children. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Makes me think of this passage from OPAR:
 

"...I want to mention first that suicide is sometimes justified, according to Objectivism. Suicide is justified when man's life, owing to circumstances outside of a person's control, is no longer possible; an example might be a person with a painful terminal illness, or a prisoner in a concentration camp who sees no chance of escape. In cases such as these, suicide is not necessarily a philosophic rejection of life or of reality. On the contrary, it may very well be their tragic reaffirmation. Self-destruction in such contexts may amount to the tortured cry: 'Man's life means so much to me that I will not settle for anything less. I will not accept a living death as a substitute.'"

It's true according to Objectivism or any other pro life philosophy. The reality buffer is needed to put one's brain properly into gear and to avoid ideological thinking. Ideological thinking is the gigantic bugaboo of what we can call "classical Objectivism," which is philosophical training wheels kept in use much, much too long.

--Brant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"i'm the only gay in the village!"

Being a minority in relation to a straight majority, having straight parents and siblings, living in a larger community ... being aware of the "condition" ... tells you nothing about an individual's "should." If there is an objective value (for the species) in parentage and parenting, if there is a responsibility that goes beyond simple reproduction, then one can ask "can a gay or lesbian raise children to adulthood?"

Surrogacy, adoption, test-tube embryos, gay sperm + lesbian ova, there are plenty of ways for folks of minority sexualities to be parents and to fulfill their responsibilities to their children. 

 

Very good, and thanks for inserting objective value** in there to remind us. A few quibbles, the objective "should" is entirely individual not collective, and "an objective value" and "a responsibility that goes far beyond simple reproduction" are contradictions. That then is a duty. One reproduces (or doesn't) not for the species or society, but for the offspring and oneself.

I echo your reminder, William, that a couple can be successful (and more) at nurturing a child, having known a few gay parents and their kids myself. Successful? Not from undertaking an onerous, prolonged duty and selflessness, but from deeply committed values, an enjoyment in and for the child - which are, you guessed, selfish values.

**the objective standard of which is "man's life" - quality men and women leading quality lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, anthony said:
22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If there is an objective value (for the species) in parentage and parenting, if there is a responsibility that goes beyond simple reproduction, then one can ask "can a gay or lesbian raise children to adulthood?"

[...][T]here are plenty of ways for folks of minority sexualities to be parents and to fulfill their responsibilities to their children.

A few quibbles, the objective "should" is entirely individual not collective, and "an objective value" and "a responsibility that goes far beyond simple reproduction" are contradictions. That then is a duty. One reproduces (or doesn't) not for the species or society, but for the offspring and oneself.

I am not sure I understand the quibbles fully. I was trying to respond to Michael's suggestion that "gay people don't reproduce" and that gay people thus "should be aware of the species ramifications of their condition."

The other point was that successful "reproduction" is not parenting.

12 hours ago, anthony said:

I echo your reminder, William, that a couple can be successful (and more) at nurturing a child, having known a few gay parents and their kids myself. Successful? Not from undertaking an onerous, prolonged duty and selflessness, but from deeply committed values, an enjoyment in and for the child - which are, you guessed, selfish values.

If you reproduce or "leave offspring," you may not play a part in the subsequent raising of the offspring.

We could elaborate on any malignant implications of parental 'responsibility' versus 'duty' ... but my understanding of what Rand had to say about 'rights of the child' is foggy. Child abandonment, neglect, and abuse haunt our worlds.

In my extended maternal family there are eleven cousins. Only two have reproduced, though a third became a step-parent. As far as I know, I am the only gay in this "village" of cousins.

Our extended family is in mourning right now -- we lost a two-year old to a rare leukemia a couple of days ago. I can't really imagine what her parents and my cousin are going through.

May I recommend the old "Baby in the Woods" OL thread? I don't have much to add to my three points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is called context-shifting and it happens all the time in today's culture. (Including in O-Land.)

Right, because I said I didn't understand your position and then went into question mode.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

We are no longer talking about human beings or the human species, but instead about one human being in an emergency situation.

It's not an emergency, it's rather the last man's new normal. He's not going to escape from the situation of there being nobody else in the world.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So how on earth can that be called biology (as a standard of value) in any terms except the biology of extinction?

Biology includes survival of the living organism, not just reproduction of it. The last man must still use his own life to figure out what is valuable to it.

On 6/20/2021 at 11:36 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or your situation, the last man on earth. If such a man commits suicide, would that be evil? Good? Biological? Suppose he gets so depressed from loneliness, living each day is torture. Is he then duty-bound to use reason to keep surviving because someone said his life is the standard of value? That doesn't sound Objectivist to me.

He wouldn't be duty-bound to survive, but if he chose to live he'd have to use his own life as a standard for survival, in addition to his abstract standard. But I agree that the "last man" scenario is fiction, and thus we shouldn't use it to formulate our standard. I used it to inform my question:

On 6/19/2021 at 7:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

Are you saying that since there are women and men in existence, their biological standard must include reproduction?

If the answer is yes, wouldn't that imply that birth control is evil? Taking the pill or wearing a condemn is bad for reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Biology includes survival of the living organism, not just reproduction of it.

MS,

The key word is "includes." I thought you wanted to use biology as a standard for living on earth for humans, at least the identification part of the standard. And a universal standard, at that. After all, humans are rational animals, right?

According to Rand's own definition, without biology, there is no rational.

So "universal," in reality terms, not only "includes." It is. As a standard, biology means the complete thing, not just part (meaning individuals and species, not just individuals). Projecting a fictional event for a specific individual is not biology. An individual as a member of a species is how biology works. That's how it is and anyone can observe it. This is not an opinion.

There are parts of biology that can apply to your last man on earth  fictional case. But it's only fiction, not reality. It's not even a projection of reality as it exists elsewhere. Why? You can't observe it.

A desert island (Robinson Caruso) is not the whole earth.

Can humans blow up the world and only leave one man left? I suppose it's possible. And, yes, if the man wanted to survive as long as possible, using reason is a good idea. But that is not how humans beings live on earth. That's not reality. To use that specific situation as the foundation for a code of values is conceptually incomplete and concrete-bound (and concrete-bound to a fictional situation at that--talk about making the same epistemological error many religions make :) )

9 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If the answer is yes, wouldn't that imply that birth control is evil? Taking the pill or wearing a condemn is bad for reproduction.

That's what I thought. 

I use the thinking system of identifying before judging when probing an issue, especially when seeking to tease out judgments like good and evil. Your answer showed you already had judgments in mind--specific judgments for specific cases at that--at the time of identifying the big picture (biology).

Here's the error. You can't fit the big picture into a specific situation. Neither knowledge nor reality work that way. For abstractions to correspond to reality, you have to fit specific situations into the big picture. 

Concepts are hierarchical. That's how I learned it. (A Ford is a type of car. A car is not a type of Ford.)

Even axiomatic concepts are hierarchical to a certain degree. In other words: primacy of existence, meaning metaphysics comes before epistemology. Metaphysics is more fundamental than epistemology. If things don't exist, especially the agent, no knowledge of anything is possible.

The root of the error in fitting the big picture into a specific situation, in Randian jargon, is "concrete bound" thinking (she talked a lot about concrete bound mentalities). As an aside, she did that herself sometimes. When I talk about this, I often refer to it as a problem of scope. (I can cite cases, but that is for another discussion.) 

Here's the big picture in the current case.

For any species to survive, individual members must reproduce. Not all individuals need to reproduce, but a good number of them need to. And others after that. And others after that. And so on. Otherwise, the species goes extinct. Is it rational to blank that out when formulating ethics and a universal code of values for humans?

I'm pretty sure you can take it from there.

But here's a hint. What is good and what is evil in a situation where good and evil no longer apply?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Is it rational to blank that out when formulating ethics and a universal code of values for humans?

Technically I wouldn't blank it out, I would line it out after consideration. A universal code of values must apply to all particular humans who want to live, and reproduction does not do that. A species is a group of individuals, a collective, and so reproduction is a collective or group value, not a universal one. To some individuals within the group (probably a minority), reproduction might be impossible or even detrimental to their lives. Thus their purpose within the group cannot or should not include reproduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 9:53 PM, Peter said:

That got me thinking about the Tom Hank's movie "Castaway" when he begins to take stock of his situation.

I still haven't seen that movie. Which is unusual since I like survival movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Technically I wouldn't blank it out, I would line it out after consideration.

MS,

That's just as bad since the result is still a big hole in the fundament.

2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

A universal code of values must apply to all particular humans who want to live, and reproduction does not do that.

Once again, you are inverting.

It took me a long time to see this, too. So please consider that I am discussing, not competing. This issue (the thinking and judging method) is important and one of the reasons I suspect Objectivism does not spread as it feels like it should. 

To correspond to reality, one must identify correctly BEFORE judging (slinging around "musts" and "shoulds"), otherwise one is evaluating the wrong thing (unless by happy accident).

Your statement reminds me of Hume's thing about swans. The following is a quote attributed to Hume, but damned if I can find where he said it. However, this quote sums up the thinking system used.

Quote

No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.

In order to judge propositions (the conclusion), this works. But suppose an act (or series of acts) of observing is not to make a proposition? Suppose it is just to see what exists. To understand something through the lens of law of identity, to use the jargon.

Well, swans are white whether that comes out in words or just images. That's the truth. In that frame, a black swan is an exception, not a refutation.

 

In your formulation, if a value is not CHOSEN to be acted on by ALL members of the human race, it is not a universal value for the human race. And that leads to the law of identity being thrown out the window.

In all classifications of natural (biological) things, there are exceptions. In fact, there can be no knowledge progress in anything without exceptions to classifications.

Induction exists.

At root, values are arrived at by induction, not deduced from a principle. (If you dig, you will see that this is a Peikoff position, too.)

To identify human nature with the stipulation that reproduction is not part of it is to misidentify human nature, misidentify human, and misidentify nature. That's a lot of misidentifying.

And to posit (by extension) that universal human values do not derive from human nature is to step outside the realm of reason.

 

Maybe this will make the issue clearer.

Our brains are constructed so that there are a hell of a lot of automatic processes going on. Many of those automatic processes can be overridden by volition and most of the time the override is temporary, meaning the brain automatically goes back to automatic default mode when volition tires. (With enough repetition and focused effort, the override can become automatic, but that is another issue.)

An example is breathing. It's automatic, but you can hold your breath for a while if you want. In fact, this particular faculty is called semi-automatic because the override is so easy. (As opposed to purely automatic or almost always automatic. Try stopping your heart by volition. It ain't happening. :) ) For a different kind of example, think about your own score on keeping New Year's resolutions. I know my score is lamentable. :) 

Without getting into the weeds and drifting beyond my point, here is the short version: Our brains are modular, the modules are highly and varyingly interconnected, and, depending on the situation, one module (or set of modules) rules the others until trading off with a new module (or set of modules). This happens many times throughout the day (with neurochemicals and so on).

Our individual awareness makes it feel like all the changes are the same thing, but the modules exist. Without them, there is no individual awareness. And, if you allow scientists to poke holes in your brain and insert things like tiny fiber optic cables, you will find that someone with a switch can cause immediate changes in how you perceive things and respond to them irrespective of your volition.

So this question is not "either-or" (meaning will versus subconscious.) It's "all." That's the way we are built.

Ditto for individual human beings within a species. There is no individual human being that does not belong to the human species, just like there is no species without the individual members. Either-or thinking does not apply to these two words (individual and species). The existence of one (like the black sway) does not negate the existence of the other.

Your very context for valuing anything as an individual is the human species.

Saying that an individual human being is a member of the human species and there are species conditions and values for the species to continue existing (which is biology) is not the same thing as collectivism (which is politics) or altruism (which is ethics in the Objectivist context).

Saying that human beings reproduce and that this is a universal value (as biology) has nothing to do with the question of birth control for an individual or whether it is good or evil. 

To use my brain description as an example, reproducing as a value is in the automatic part of the brain and choosing birth control is the override.

Using that as the identification foundation, we can then go on to evaluate birth control and know we are evaluating what exists, not what we would like to exist instead of reality.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I still haven't seen that movie.

No offense meant, but I remember when some objectivists intensely disliked “Forrest Gump.” I don’t think they “got it.” Tom Hank’s was the character Josh Baskin in “Big,” Chuck Noland in “Castaway,” Allen Bauer in “Splash,” Sam Baldwin in “Sleepless in Seattle,”  Captain John H. Miller in “Saving Private Ryan,” Joe Fox in “You’ve Got Mail,” Viktor Navorski in “The Terminal,” Professor Robert Langdon in “The Da Vinci Code,” and of course “Forrest Gump.” Those titles are some of my all-time favorite movies. And Tom Hank’s is my all-time favorite actor. Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, one of the harsher ARI critics of “Forrest Gump” was Robert Tracinski and I stopped subscribing to his site because he seemed to depart the universe I inhabit. That is meant as a semi-joke. I still get things from him in my email and here is an excellent excerpt from one of his articles. Imagine the “psychology” of an AI entity. Peter

September 12, 2016 FEATURE ARTICLE Futurism TV Nine Ways Star Trek Anticipated and Celebrated the Future by Robert Tracinski . . . . The closest they got to anticipating elements of virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence--and how they could all work together--was Geordi La Forge's holographic brainstorming session with an AI reconstruction of a starship engineer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more aside, here in this thread on psychology terms, since it is quiet? Robert Tracinski was a harsh critic of Donald Trump too, but back in 2009 he almost predicted an actual free market, free thinking, Republican Candidate . . . who would WIN!    

From The Daily Debate by Robert Tracinski who quoted: The Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen think they know who is going to be leading that reform. The real power on the right, they argue, rests with the "Rubio-Rand Party." "Forget John Boehner. Ignore Karl Rove. The real action in the GOP is coming from the newest wing of the party, the one born in the spring of 2009—the offspring of Tea Party activists that almost single-handedly propelled Republicans to control of the House. "This new movement brought Marco Rubio and Rand Paul to Washington—and made them the two most potent forces in GOP politics today." end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 7:04 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In your formulation, if a value is not CHOSEN to be acted on by ALL members of the human race, it is not a universal value for the human race. And that leads to the law of identity being thrown out the window.

First, that isn't my formulation. Mine would sound like this: if a value is not POSSIBLE (or not BENEFICIAL) to EACH member of the human race, then it is not a universal value for the human race. My formulation is not about chosen values, it's about objective values. Reproduction is not an objective value to each member of the human race.

Consider that an individual goes through stages of life from infancy to old age. His identity, and thus some of his objective values, change over the course of his life. It is only after physical maturity that reproduction becomes possible to fertile adults. And then it becomes impossible again for elderly, post-menopausal women. Thus, a significant portion of the human race cannot reproduce. Reproduction could be a value for the fertile portion of humanity. But even then there are other factors to consider in particular circumstances, such as whether it would positively or negatively affect the parents, the nation or the species.

On 6/23/2021 at 7:04 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To identify human nature with the stipulation that reproduction is not part of it is to misidentify human nature, misidentify human, and misidentify nature. That's a lot of misidentifying.

Each human has an identity, and for many of them their identity does not include reproduction. That's an objective fact. Children can't produce sperm or eggs. They can't reproduce. Elderly women are no longer fertile, they can't reproduce.

If "human nature" meant the nature of mature, fertile humans, I could see the foundation for your position. But that's not what it means. It includes non-fertile humans too. Children and old women are not exceptions to humanity. Childhood and old age are normal stages of being a human.

Now it's true that children normally develop into fertile adults, and most elderly women were fertile in their youth, but that doesn't change their current nature. And when you're identifying something, you must identify it as it currently exists, otherwise what are you identifying? The human species consists of human individuals at all stages of life, both reproductive and not. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now