Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Victor Pross]

Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

By Victor Pross

“By free-thinking, I mean the use of the understanding in endeavoring to find out the meaning of any proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the evidence for or against it, and in judging of it according to the seeming force or weakness of the evidence.”

--Anthony Collins

***

It has been said that “Man is a rational animal” -- and this is a fact. He can also be said to be an emotional animal. This is often to the good. Without emotions our lives would be drab and boring. The emotions compliment our triumphs and defeats, and they add meaning to our lives. Properly understood and rationally harnessed, they are the source of our greatest moments. Without reason, we are merely animals. Without emotions, we are automatons.

Happily, Objectivists know that there is no dichotomy between reason and emotion. Now I don’t need to belabor the role of emotions in man’s life to a largely Objectivist audience. So this post will not address the Objectivist position of reason and emotions and their relationship to each other.

Having said that, I wish to put to the reader the following: despite reasoned arguments, the emotions often get in the way. You read me right. They blind us from seeing clearly and from thinking objectively. Our emotions can trick us. Because of them, we may accept as true that which is not true and we may be lead astray to regard as relevant that which is not irrelevant.

Now, I am not contradicting myself here: reason and emotions are not metaphysically antagonistic. The key word here is “metaphysics”—in that: it’s not in the nature of man that he must either follow reason or emotion. But I am saying that we are able—by choice or error—to take our emotions 'primary' and construct upon them our conclusions or perspective of a given topic. This is true of many people and, dare I say it, it is no less true of Objectivists.

I am not necessarily speaking here of rationalizations, although that can be a hindrance to truth. Sometimes it's the simple fact of our being too irritated and not at all happy that someone else has bested us in an argument (even if we now are in hold of a new truth over a falsehood.)

A glance at many of the posts at OL will substantiate my claim. It is evident that there are many Objectivists who are not entirely “on the same page.” Sometimes I see a new article posted “for discussion” to find it being tackled with open praise--to being expanded upon—to sometimes see the topic collapse into bitter disputes and snide attacks on the person who either posted the article, or upon the persons who have the unmitigated gull to agree with it!

Then sometimes I see a total split from reasonableness, when following a certain thread, to find a break from the topic to personal attacks. This is hardly rational. It can even break down the spirit.

We can view emotions from a different vantage point: what to do so as not to pique the emotions of others and so as not to turn a neutral, if not benign, party into a hostile one—and, what to recognize so that others will not take advantage of our emotions in order to deceive. (I’m speaking more generally here, and I’m not saying this is characteristic of Objectivists.) Sensitivity is the key word in dealing with others. I say this, but I have been guilty in my life for failing to practice it. It's on such occasions that I dislike myself for it.

It seems that Objectivists have failed to appreciate this: just because there is no dichotomy between reason and emotion—does not mean that we should forget that others HAVE emotions. This is obvious, but it is frequently forgotten or ignored. Our emotions are delicate. We all have weak spots; we are vulnerable somewhere. There is an old adage: The truth hurts.

This does not mean that the “truth is our enemy”---it merely means that sometimes…well, the truth hurts.

Here are some of the specific ways that emotions can interfere with reasoned discussion:

We—Objectivists included—become personally involved; we regard as a personal attack an idea or attitude that differs from one of our own ideas or attitudes; we feel that, because something we say is challenged, we are personally being challenged.

Even Objectivists can be put on the defensive by making dogmatic statements such as, “You don’t know what you are talking about” to much worse. This is not rational, but the error can be subtle enough that we overlook this insight.We become sarcastic or patronizing or hostile. We use language that is evaluative without defending or documenting those evaluations. We use loaded words, words that have strong emotional connotations.

Instead of addressing ourselves to the issue, we aim our remarks at the other person: at his weak spots, his personality or his style of presentation.

We also commit the following intellectual sins:

* We make jokes at the expense of the other person.

* We do not listen carefully to the other person; we select what suits our purpose

*We reject what does not suit our purpose.

* We refuse to admit that the other person may have an occasional valid point and that there may be at least some truth in what is being stated.

** ** **

To conclude: If you take heed of anything I have said in this post, I’m convinced that OL will become a greater value and benefit to all of her participants. Let’s try to remember that the truth is the final arbiter and our objective is to KNOW THE TRUTH. This is not about and painting the other guy in a corner. Let the search for wisdon be your desire and standard.

**

edit: Readers, what ideas do you have to make OL a better place in which to gain wisdom and to socialize in the process? Speak up.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Victor Pross

[sjw]

Having said that, I wish to put to the reader the following: despite reasoned arguments, the emotions often get in the way. You read me right. They blind us from seeing clearly and from thinking objectively. Our emotions can trick us. Because of them, we may accept as true that which is not true and we may be lead astray to regard as relevant that which is not irrelevant.

Victor, there's an undercurrent of egalitarianism in your entire post. It's highlighted in this paragraph.

The truth is not that "we" are often blinded by emotions. The truth is that *some* people are often blinded, some are rarely blinded, and some are never blinded. The relevant question here is: how can one remake oneself such that emotions never rule? The first step is to recognize that that is an undesirable state. Then recognize that we are perfectable beings. And finally: never let yourself off the hook, not for something big nor something small. If you *ever* catch yourself being ruled by emotions, then there's a good opportunity for self-improvement. Don't miss it.

The worst possible thing you can do is what you did here: ignore the fact that some have actually learned to give reason priority. I see that kind of thing too often in this forum. It's Christian values plain and simple. "Who am I to cast the first stone?" is what drives this bundling of everyone into a mush and then talking about our collective weaknesses. Collectives don't have weaknesses or strengths; individuals do, and individuals should take responsibility.

[Rich Engle]

Actual adults do not let emotions "rule them." One solution is to subjugate them, push them down, keep them constantly at bay. Maybe better to feel them fully, experience them, let them come through. They pretty much leave when it's time for them to leave anyway. Or if they get pushed down hard, they reappear as repression. Not to say one shoudn't be trying to find the information they often carry.

Maybe even better to integrate-- to develop one's emotional intelligence, as Daniel Goleman refers to the capacity. Emotional intelligence is a very elegant mode of perceiving, of communicating with others, understanding them fully. It can be purposefully developed.

It seems abundantly clear to me that this type of integration is more viable than the traditional command and control approach.

[Kevin Haggerty]

It seems abundantly clear to me that this type of integration is more viable than the traditional command and control approach.

I have never seen "command and control" work, though I've seen it tried time and time again. You know, I actually tried it myself for a while in college. I actually thought of myself as "a successful control freak" (at least I still had a sense of humor): just as it's not paranoia if they're actually out to get you, you can't be a control freak if you actually maintain control.

Haha. The laugh was on me. The folk I've seen who claim to be "in control" of themselves (myself included), have proven upon closer examination to be miopic and hostile, extremely suspicious of disagreement, bringing their harshest condemnations out at the slightest sign of trouble--you know, trash first and ask questions later. This method is very successful at keeping you isolated, which makes it much easier to maintain your delusions of grandeur. The wonder of the Internet has made it possible for such otherwise miserable loners to find like-minded people and then band together in highly controled mutual admiration societies, fawning over each other and condemning the whole wide world at large.

-Kevin

[sjw]

Haha. The laugh was on me. The folk I've seen who claim to be "in control" of themselves (myself included), have proven upon closer examination to be miopic and hostile, extremely suspicious of disagreement, bringing their harshest condemnations out at the slightest sign of trouble--you know, trash first and ask questions later. This method is very successful at keeping you isolated, which makes it much easier to maintain your delusions of grandeur. The wonder of the Internet has made it possible for such otherwise miserable loners to find like-minded people and then band together in highly controled mutual admiration societies, fawning over each other and condemning the whole wide world at large.

"Ha ha" indeed--again we see the substitution of ad hominem for actual arguments. My point was that it is possible not to be an emotionalist--and here we see the emotionalist ad hominem retort: to not be an emotionalist is to be an emotionalist of the worst kind. To attempt to have reason rule is to cave in to emotion and become a "paranoid miserable loner". The sad element of truth in that is that rational people are the minority, and have to put up with masses of tolerationist emotionalists.

That is the only way these types know how to deal with ideas--to malign and attack. That's the irony of the tolerationist approach. They are tolerant and treat everyone equally--unless you disagree about being tolerant and treating everyone equally. Then you see their true spirit, as they bare their teeth as in this snarling and vicious character attack.

Edited January 13, 2007 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I truly do not think Kevin was addressing you. He mentioned miserable loners who band together in mutual admiration societies, etc. That has nothing to do with you. (Think about a certain website... )

I have also suffered from trying to control my emotions by rational command alone. The result: I became a drug addict. I only found my way out of that by learning how to deal with my emotions as they exist, not as I thought they should exist.

I think Kevin was talking about this type of issue, not about you.

Michael

[Kevin Haggerty]

"Ha ha" indeed--again we see the substitution of ad hominem for actual arguments. My point was that it is possible not to be an emotionalist--and here we see the emotionalist ad hominem retort: to not be an emotionalist is to be an emotionalist of the worst kind. To attempt to have reason rule is to cave in to emotion and become a "paranoid miserable loner". The sad element of truth in that is that rational people are the minority, and have to put up with masses of tolerationist emotionalists.

That is the only way these types know how to deal with ideas--to malign and attack. That's the irony of the tolerationist approach. They are tolerant and treat everyone equally--unless you disagree about being tolerant and treating everyone equally. Then you see their true spirit, as they bare their teeth as in this snarling and vicious character attack.

Wow, Shayne. I want to answer your post as directly as I can. I'm a little blown away by it, to be honest. I try to choose my words very carefully, so I find it very disheartening when my intentions are so broadly misunderstood. I also feel a little hijacked, that you took my remarks and used them to fuel some old conflict you're carrying, the true context of which exists wholy beyond the scope of this thread.

As Michael observed, I wasn't talking about you (I didn't even know your name was Shayne until just now). My personal reference, beyond my own obnoxious college persona (didn't I make that part clear, that I was speaking of my own intellectually disreputable past?), was the old SoloHQ. But more generally, I was speaking to this bizarre condemnation/banishment phenomanon in Oism throughout its history and to which we are daily witness now, in the antics over at ARI and the new SoloPassion, etc. My characterization of such folk may seem extreme to you, but I've never seen the kind of hostility and rage in print that I've seen in the past year or more of reading Objectivists duking it out online.

But since I am talking to you now, I gotta make a couple observations: however logically you came by it, you conclude in your first post that Victor, a self-described objectivist of many years, is espousing Christian values. How do you honestly expect Victor to respond to such an accusation? Are you deliberately antagonizing him? If so, to what end?

You claim to see my "true spirit" in my last post and imagine me snarling and call me vicious, my method "ad hominem." Were you intending to give me a dose, as you see it, of my own medicine? Because you seem to be perpetrating exactly what you accused me of.

I think what happened is that you personalized my remarks. You imagined them as a "retort" to your own, when they were not. I think personalizing remarks that were never directed at us is a major cause of misunderstanding and a clear sign of emotionalism overwhelming reason.

Now, I'm guessing you might accuse me of "ad hominem" for that last remark, as I clearly implied that you seemed to let your emotions cloud your judgement in your last post. But, seriously Shayne, when you set yourself up as an exemplum of humanity unblinded by emotion, don't you rely upon your own rational character as the crux of your argument? Haven't you yourself put it up for discussion?

-Kevin

[sjw]

I also feel a little hijacked, that you took my remarks and used them to fuel some old conflict you're carrying, the true context of which exists wholy beyond the scope of this thread.

Well, no, the true context is that I said reason should have primacy over emotion, a few posts later you say command and control doesn't work and the people who practice it are "miserable loners".

As Michael observed, I wasn't talking about you (I didn't even know your name was Shayne until just now).

What does knowing my name have to do with it?

My characterization of such folk may seem extreme to you, but I've never seen the kind of hostility and rage in print that I've seen in the past year or more of reading Objectivists duking it out online.

You were not characterizing those folk before now. You were characterizing "command and control". If all you meant by it was emotional repression, then why didn't you use those words? What exactly are you talking about here if not the idea that reason should be in charge--the exact point I was making just before your post?

But since I am talking to you now, I gotta make a couple observations: however logically you came by it, you conclude in your first post that Victor, a self-described objectivist of many years, is espousing Christian values. How do you honestly expect Victor to respond to such an accusation? Are you deliberately antagonizing him? If so, to what end?

What's your point? That I shouldn't make logical connections if someone might be insulted by them? Also I find this misleading. I wasn't claiming Victor espoused Christian values. But even if I were, I'd think the point should be about whether it's actually true, not whether he'd be offended. You're not makng much sense to me so far.

I think what happened is that you personalized my remarks. You imagined them as a "retort" to your own, when they were not.

Now here is where I suspect you are being disingenuous in spite of your being "blown away". Because as I said, I think it's clear from the progression here exactly why I thought you were replying to my point. Even if I suppose that you really were innocent and I made a mistake, I don't see how you can't see why I assumed you were responding to me.

Edited January 15, 2007 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Hold on a sec.

Now here is where I suspect you are being disingenuous in spite of your being "blown away". Because as I said, I think it's clear from the progression here exactly why I thought you were replying to my point. Even if I suppose that you really were innocent and I made a mistake, I don't see how you can't see why I assumed you were responding to me.

Regardless of whether you think Kevin was being disingenuous or not, or what you suppose, or what you think is clear, the point is that he was not talking about you. He was talking about other people on other sites and himself in the past. He even said so. But even granting a possibility that he could see your point, what is the point of the following?

That is the only way these types know how to deal with ideas--to malign and attack. That's the irony of the tolerationist approach. They are tolerant and treat everyone equally--unless you disagree about being tolerant and treating everyone equally. Then you see their true spirit, as they bare their teeth as in this snarling and vicious character attack.

"These types" you were referring to was Kevin and the "only way they know how to deal with ideas" is not the way you said.

You made a mistake.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

This is ironic.

[sjw]

Regardless of whether you think Kevin was being disingenuous or not, or what you suppose, or what you think is clear, the point is that he was not talking about you. He was talking about other people on other sites and himself in the past. He even said so.

Regardless of whether he was being disingenuous?? I think that's a central point--if what the subject is whether I made a mistake or not. If his story is riddled with contradictions, then why should I believe anything he says?

Of course, the subject shoudn't be whether I made a mistake or not. I mean, that's a clever ad hominem ploy to play in this particular context (and yet another point that makes his response lack credibility). But that isn't the point here. It's a total misdirection, shifting from the ideas to the person. His full energy in that post is directed at me personally, not to my point. Just as your full energy here is directed at me personally, and not to my point. So Jeff's right that this is ironic, though not in the sense that I suspect he means. The tolerationists are once again at it.

"These types" you were referring to was Kevin and the "only way they know how to deal with ideas" is not the way you said.

You made a mistake.

Again--*If* I made a mistake about whether Kevin was talking to me--and it doesn't look to me so far that I did given that his story doesn't add up--then that doesn't mean I "made a mistake" about the important issue here: the true spirit of tolerationists. (I overstated it slightly. That may not be the *only* way they know. I didn't mean they were incapable of dealing with ideas honestly. I meant they usually choose not to).

Again--refusal to discuss the actual ideas here and bearing down on me personally instead is just more proof that what I said about tolerationists is actually true. It's indeed irony.

[sjw]

Let's say you're watching a debate between two people, and person A makes a single mistake of fact. Would you say that the honest debater would:

a) Note the mistake, then get back to discussing the opponent's arguments; or

b) Shift the entire debate to zooming in on the one mistake while ignoring the opponent's arguments.

Edited January 15, 2007 by sjw

[Rich Engle]

Command and control is a specific model of management, normally associated with military organizations, where it is, if anywhere, apt, because it pertains to life and death as to chain of command.

The essence of command and control is very easy. I say, you do, no questions. It is interesting to note (Nathaniel Branden does some of the best on this) that most organizations that persisted with the model in the new knowledge-worker based economy have failed, or are about to.

I used the C/C phrase because, for one, there is more to what I wished to say than "repression," and for two, it is, I believe, an excellent analogy if one looks at people from a system standpoint. Certainly not to play fun with words.

Emotions are not tools of cognition is a statement I disagree with, now. To look at them as mere byproducts is, well, archaic. Evolutionary psychology alone gives us reason to believe otherwise.

It's just not that simple, is all, and if one is out to integrate, the top-down/repress approach, for sure, shows it can cause pathology (as in when integration fails).

[sjw]

- I agree that military CC is a bad form of control for both businesses and the self.

- I agree that emotions are vital tools of cognition. In spite of a perhaps imprecise statement by Rand, she was well aware of that, as demonstrated in her "Art of Fiction".

[Kevin Haggerty]

Okay, Shayne, I've made my intentions clear and you continue to accuse me of being underhanded. You won't take my word for what my intentions are. You have that right, but the grounds you've given so far for your slander of me are slight and full of simple inaccuracies.

You continue to ignore Rich Engle's post #3, which directly preceded mine. It was Rich who first spoke of "command and control" as anyone can read and it was Rich's post to which I replied. Rich's post is crucial, in my view, to the context of my post.

This is a very active board. Like a lot of folks here, I don't have time to read everything posted, so I tend to read the posts of people who's ideas interest me. I read Rich's posts wherever I find them. That's why it is significant to the discussion that I don't know you and have no familiarity with your ideas. I glanced over your post, but didn't give it much thought. Rich's post, however, reminded me of who I used to be in college, so I replied--again, to his post with little or no reguard to yours.

You were not characterizing those folk before now. You were characterizing "command and control". If all you meant by it was emotional repression, then why didn't you use those words? What exactly are you talking about here if not the idea that reason should be in charge--the exact point I was making just before your post?

It seems clear to me that you didn't read Rich's post and now I wonder how much of mine you read before launching your salvo. I wrote: "The wonder of the Internet has made it possible for such otherwise miserable loners to find like-minded people and then band together in highly controled mutual admiration societies, fawning over each other and condemning the whole wide world at large." I didn't feel the need to specify what "highly controled mutual admiration societies" I was refering to. I expected that most people at OL would understand me perfectly. Rich Engle in particular, the man to whom my post was directed, certainly would. Far from making disingenuous retorts to you, Shayne, it turns out I inadvertantly left you out of the conversation when I assumed a context which you did not share. It happens.

What's your point? That I shouldn't make logical connections if someone might be insulted by them? Also I find this misleading. I wasn't claiming Victor espoused Christian values. But even if I were, I'd think the point should be about whether it's actually true, not whether he'd be offended. You're not makng much sense to me so far.

Now who's being disingenuous? Do you really expect a practicing Objectivist to take your snide comment at face value and think, "By jiggers, he's right! My values aren't Objectivist, they're Christian!" If you're gonna accuse an Oist of being Christian, you better have more evidence than this:

The worst possible thing you can do is what you did here: ignore the fact that some have actually learned to give reason priority. I see that kind of thing too often in this forum. It's Christian values plain and simple.

How one can honestly get from a man acknowledging the human capacity for error to "he's Christian" I want to know. Explain it to me. And no, simply because A and B share one casually defined characteristic in common does not make them one and the same thing.

I think what happened is that you personalized my remarks. You imagined them as a "retort" to your own, when they were not.

Now here is where I suspect you are being disingenuous in spite of your being "blown away". Because as I said, I think it's clear from the progression here exactly why I thought you were replying to my point. Even if I suppose that you really were innocent and I made a mistake, I don't see how you can't see why I assumed you were responding to me.

Your suspicious are misplaced. And, you got the progression dead wrong so any conlusion you reach based upon your understanding of the progression is dead wrong. And, your subsequent posts here serve only to confirm that you had a ready-made conflict which my comments to Rich triggered, and past which, you still refuse to see.

-Kevin

[sjw]

Okay, Shayne, I've made my intentions clear and you continue to accuse me of being underhanded. You won't take my word for what my intentions are. You have that right, but the grounds you've given so far for your slander of me are slight and full of simple inaccuracies.

Well now, this *is* getting ironic. I never accused you of being underhanded. I said your story didn't add up. And I pointed out how you are focusing on *me* rather than on the main point at issue here. So you're the one making a mistake--of the same type you accuse me of! And--you're still focussed on *me* and and alleged incidental accident, and not the issue at hand.

You continue to ignore Rich Engle's post #3, which directly preceded mine.

Again with the jumping to conclusions about what's in my head. How exactly did you conclude that I was ignoring Rich's post? Look, I sympathize with being misunderstood--if indeed that's what happened. But you ought to try harder to practice what you preach.

Now who's being disingenuous? Do you really expect a practicing Objectivist to take your snide comment at face value and think, "By jiggers, he's right! My values aren't Objectivist, they're Christian!" If you're gonna accuse an Oist of being Christian, you better have more evidence than this:

Where did I accuse anyone of being a Christian?

Let's suppose I did make a mistake of fact. What of it? You're making reams of them. The irony is so thick in here I could cut it with a knife...

How one can honestly get from a man acknowledging the human capacity for error to "he's Christian" I want to know.

Speaking of emotionalism--that's really all I can posit to explain how you could be so grossly off track. I never said "he's Christian".

Your suspicious are misplaced. And, you got the progression dead wrong so any conlusion you reach based upon your understanding of the progression is dead wrong. And, your subsequent posts here serve only to confirm that you had a ready-made conflict which my comments to Rich triggered, and past which, you still refuse to see.

On the contrary, you're obviously being so clumsy in dealing with the basic facts in this thread as to put into question any assertion you might make here. It's not me who "refuses to see"; it's you who refuses to deal in what I actually said.

[Rich Engle]

Well, all the greasy Greco Roman wrestling aside, I was impressed that Shayne concurs with me on the two points. That is good, real thinking, I believe. There's even ~beloved evidence~ to support it!

You guys will work it out.

Right?

Right!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's say you're watching a debate between two people, and person A makes a single mistake of fact. Would you say that the honest debater would:

a) Note the mistake, then get back to discussing the opponent's arguments; or

B) Shift the entire debate to zooming in on the one mistake while ignoring the opponent's arguments.

Shayne,

You mean like starting with a sarcastic "'Haha' indeed" to mock a poster? And making broad generalizations about the person, erroneously collectivizing him as a "tolerationist" or something like that and calling his arguments baring his teeth and snarling with ad hominem, etc., as it he had not discussed any ideas at all? And not even trying to understand what he is saying, substituting cognition for hostile speculations instead?

How is that discussing any arguments at all?

Kevin is an honest man and it is insulting to gratuitously suppose otherwise.

For what it's worth, I also don't see any "opponents" in this discussion. I see no competition at all, just some different viewpoints so far.

Like I said, you made a mistake (actually you made a few). No big deal, but it's a bone that needs to be buried now.

As to the ideas, on the reason/emotion dichotomy that is on the table, there is no dichotomy where one must reign supreme over the other as if they were in a perpetual war against each other. They are both necessary and they must work in proper balance according to their own natures, otherwise they sabotage the mind as a survival mechanism.

I remember reading a Time article once where it reported on people who had been subjected to lobotomies. They could not feel standard emotions any longer. They managed to do the cognitive abstraction part of thinking—identifying reality correctly—but they could not use reason to value.

One example in the article stood out to me (and I am pretty sure I remember this correctly). If one of them were one a railroad track and a train was coming, he would correctly identify that a train was coming, that if he did not move the train would run over him, and that if that happened, he would die. But this information was not enough to get him off the track. He simply didn't care.

These people had to be constantly looked after in isolation, otherwise they would hurt themselves or die. They could not evaluate knowledge in terms of their own lives. Their reason was no longer a survival mechanism.

If valuing is a cognitive activity, and I believe it is (using "normative abstractions"), then the statement, "emotions are not tools of cognition," needs to be revised—maybe to something like "emotions are not tools of conceptual identification of facts." Here is the Free Dictionary definition of cognition:

cog·ni·tion

n.

1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

I am sensitive to Rand's point that something like a religious vision where the "word of God" tells a person to kill others is not knowledge. Also, an emotion is not a tool of logic, so "I just feel that's wrong" is not a refutation of any statement according to the laws of logic.

I fully agree that keeping emotions in balance requires volitional effort (and it is often difficult). But I do not agree with the attitude of making light of emotions as the poor stepchild of the mind. For successful cognition in terms of survival, emotions are essential. They are just as important as rational thought, not less so (and not more so).

Maybe the best way to say this is that emotions cannot be used for rational thought, nor can rational thought be used for emotions. Both are fundamental. To repeat, the two must work according to their specific natures, otherwise they sabotage the mind as a means of survival.

Incidentally, Rand's power as a writer is in her emotional appeal, not just her logic. Both are essential parts of her communication. Even though she did not state it like that, she certainly used it like that. Without the emotional appeal, she would not be popular and her ideas would not spread. Period. Notice that Peikoff is not nearly as popular as her and never will be, although his fundamental ideas are the same as hers. This is because of the emotional component. If he had founded Objectivism, it would be dead in the water. (That goes for practically all major Objectivist thinkers.)

Michael

PS - This crossed with the last 3 posts, so it was written without having read the recent exchange.

[sjw]

Michael you are mostly preaching to the choir. Or actually, the preacher.

I never took Rand the way many seem to have on this issue of "emotions aren't tools of cognition". Rand's writings--like all writings--are a mere map. They aren't a substitute for reality. If the map has a slight error or imprecision, then if you're focussed on reality it's not a problem. It's still a great map and serves you well. If you don't use writings like a map, then a slight error can lead to disaster. As this "emotions aren't tools of cognition" could.

Because emotions are absolutely essential to cognition. Rand herself empahsized this in her "Art of Fiction". As an engineer I'm quite conscious of how emotions are essential to good design. Engineers who don't nurture their emotions with regard to engineering designs absolutely cannot design well. They can do lower-level tasks OK, but are barred from the higher-levels. That's because there are so many details that must be evaluated that sensitivity to your emotions is the only possible way to detect a problem out of the mass. Applied to writing, Rand called this "the squirms"--she emphasized that you have to be sensitive, it's the sign of a contradiction somewhere that must be resolved.

On the other hand, reason absolutely must be the master. It is absolutely in charge, and sometimes it has to overrule emotion for short periods (doing so over long periods is bad and is called "repression"; doing it for short periods can be good and is called "suppression"). On the other hand, emotion should never overrule reason. Emotions are mere machinery, an aspect of our subconscious that we, hopefully, craft to suit our purposes; it's the reasoning aspect of the mind that makes us human. So I think you may be going too far in your characterization.

Edited January 15, 2007 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the other hand, reason absolutely must be the master. It is absolutely in charge, and sometimes it has to overrule emotion for short periods (doing so over long periods is bad and is called "repression"; doing it for short periods can be good and is called "suppression"). On the other hand, emotion should never overrule reason. Emotions are mere machinery, an aspect of our subconscious that we, hopefully, craft to suit our purposes; it's the reasoning aspect of the mind that makes us human. So I think you may be going too far in your characterization.

Shayne,

I find the lack of context in statements like this problematic. For instance, when I read, "reason absolutely must be the master," or "emotion should never overrule reason," I immediately think, "When and where?"

I can think of dozens of situations where a person would die if emotions did not kick in and take control over reason. Fight/flight responses are just one group of emotions where this is often the case.

In my thinking, "balance" is the correct word for an all-context formulation if a false dichotomy is to be avoided. The idea of "supremacy" depends on the situation. You stated, "it's the reasoning aspect of the mind that makes us human." I hope I made it clear that I consider emotions to be a fundamental part of reasoning, not one that can be eliminated. I am not sure you do in this statement.

There is another point where we might be in disagreement. I believe we can craft many emotions with rational thinking, but not all of them. As Steve Shmurak pointed out, the basic affects are pre-wired at birth and I am not sure it is possible to craft a basic affect, at least to any significant extent. The part that gets crafted is on a much higher level. Also, some emotions are biochemical imbalances in the brain. There are other things of this nature that are in the mix.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

The mind is the primary tool of survival. The mind, not reason itself. Reason, however, is the mega-tool sitting on top of the box.

It is not an either or situation. As Michael says, balance. We can act harmoniously, emotion and intellect together. That is the integrated human. Takes work!

[sjw]

I find the lack of context in statements like this problematic. For instance, when I read, "reason absolutely must be the master," or "emotion should never overrule reason," I immediately think, "When and where?"

I can think of dozens of situations where a person would die if emotions did not kick in and take control over reason. Fight/flight responses are just one group of emotions where this is often the case.

Your interpretation of what happens in these situations is wrong. Reason stays in charge. It makes a judgement call and quickly undertakes action, but not leaving it in charge leads to disaster. E.g., deciding to jump two stories rather than running around screaming burning to death in a house fire. I think your view of reason is some plodding introspective thing, but that's a bad concept of reason.

In my thinking, "balance" is the correct word for an all-context formulation if a false dichotomy is to be avoided. The idea of "supremacy" depends on the situation. You stated, "it's the reasoning aspect of the mind that makes us human." I hope I made it clear that I consider emotions to be a fundamental part of reasoning, not one that can be eliminated. I am not sure you do in this statement.

There's probably some difference between our views, I'm not precisely sure what it is yet. Certainly my view is not a simplistic "ingore your emotions" view. Emotion both motivates reasoning and provides important clues that reason follows. That's my view. I'm not sure what yours is. I suspect what you're talking about is pragmatism--which is a bad approach.

There is another point where we might be in disagreement. I believe we can craft many emotions with rational thinking, but not all of them. As Steve Shmurak pointed out, the basic affects are pre-wired at birth and I am not sure it is possible to craft a basic affect, at least to any significant extent. The part that gets crafted is on a much higher level. Also, some emotions are biochemical imbalances in the brain. There are other things of this nature that are in the mix.

I agree with Shmurak. There are fundamental "atomic" elements of emotion that can't be rewired. They can only be redirected--we can program when a given affect comes into play, not the affect itself. When I talk about crafting emotions, that's exactly what I'm referring to.

[sjw]

The mind is the primary tool of survival. The mind, not reason itself. Reason, however, is the mega-tool sitting on top of the box.

It is not an either or situation. As Michael says, balance. We can act harmoniously, emotion and intellect together. That is the integrated human. Takes work!

What you are talking about is pragmatism. Something must ultimately be in charge--emotions or reason. If reason isn't your mega-tool, then emotions are. On that level, it certainly is "either-or", though picking the reason side does not imply all the bad things you guys seem to want to say it does, even though some people who claim to pick the reason side do what you say they do.

[Rich Engle]

Shayne,

I'm legitimately curious as to how you are seeing pragmatism in MSK's statements. I feel like I'm missing something, and obviously I'm no stranger to pragmatism. (For the record, I find pragmatism good in pragmatic situations, if you know what I mean...just not as a way of going through life).

I mean, I don't think he's saying "if it feels good, do it." He might be saying (and here I think we all have commonality) "feel while you are thinking about what to do..." Somewhere in there.

Elaborate, please? It's interesting.

[Rich Engle]

I have nothing bad to say about reason, that would be foolish!

A lot of my perspective is Eastern (and please, let's not immediately cry mysticism, it has nothing to do with that).

For instance, Gurdjieff's work, in simple terms... The 3 main body centers: intellectual, emotional, physical. The work involves harmonizing them. One way or another, these three are the main cards you have as a being. Optimum means having them act in concert. How do we do this? This is what I mean by harmonization.