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

[sjw]

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

And I have nothing bad to say about harmony either.

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.

You asked me a question about why I said Michael's view sounded like pragmatism. I think addressing you here should lead to that answer.

Here's the crux: Harmony is absolutely the ideal, but what happens when you don't have it (and no one can all the time, except a dead person)? Then what do you do? Well one thing is you try to harmonize them. But that can take a long time; on some issues for some people, more than a lifetime maybe (e.g., hardened criminals). But what if action is required now?

What I'm saying is that reason must always rule these situations. A criminal with the urge to steal should always follow reason and abstain. So should a good guy on other issues where reason declares that something isn't right.

[Rich Engle]

Yes, reason is a very pragmatic solution.

(easy there, easy!!! i just HAD to).

Is reason what keeps a trying to reform criminal from stealing? Sometimes. Steal=back in the pokey.

Of course, that never seems to work out all that consistently, one must admit. Ah, if it were only that easy.

I see some of where you come from now. But this: if, in your examples, they are reminded by reason acting as the needle on the moral compass, say... What they are often fighting is an impulse, a pathological one. So in regard to those, which do fit into the set of emotion, I agree, and only wish it worked more often.

Edited January 15, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Keeping context is not pragmatism. I argue for keeping context.

In your example, I agree that rational thought must control destructive urges. I would even go further in saying that volition is fundamental in your examples and that even deeper rational thinking will lead the person to introspect and discover the source of such urges so he can get rid of them or rechannel them.

btw - In mapping the functions of the thalamus and amygdala in sudden emotional reactions, some impulses have been found to bypass the visual cortex through a "back door." You can find a description of this in Emotional Intelligence by Goleman. Below is a quote (p. 19) from an illustration showing a person seeing a snake and arrows tracing the signal pathways in the brain. He uses the example of how the fight/flight response kicks in, where the "heart rate and blood pressure increase" and "large muscles prepare for quick action" (text quoted from the same illustration).

A visual signal first goes from the retina to the thalamus, where it is translated into the language of the brain. Most of the message then goes to the visual cortex, where it is analyzed and assessed for meaning and appropriate response; if that response is emotional, a signal goes to the amygdala to activate the emotional centers. But a smaller portion of the original signal goes straight from the thalamus to the amygdala in a quicker transmission, allowing a faster (though less precise) response. Thus the amygdala can trigger an emotional response before the cortical centers have fully understood what is happening.

I speculate, but I imagine this to be one of the most pure manners in which an adult can directly experience an affect. Apparently reason (either meaning: rational thought plus emotions, or rational thought alone), is not part of this process. I imagine that this is how a lot of valuing works with infants until they learn more.

Michael

[sjw]

Keeping context is not pragmatism. I argue for keeping context.

Well I argue for keeping context as well. But the issue at hand was the primacy of reason. I said reason should have primacy over emotions, you seemed to disagree. The only explanation I have is that you are arguing that reason does not have primacy, which in my system of thought implies pragmatism. I'm not telling you what you think, just my guess given what you said. The main thing is that I don't understand what you're disagreeing with me about.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The main thing is that I don't understand what you're disagreeing with me about.

Shayne,

Funny. I thought you were disagreeing with me.

We might have some differences on the definition of reason. I do not set it as an opposite of emotions. I include emotions as a component of reason. I am unsure of where you fall here.

Michael

[sjw]

We might have some differences on the definition of reason. I do not set it as an opposite of emotions. I include emotions as a component of reason. I am unsure of where you fall here.

I fall with most of mankind who recognizes reason (thinking) and emotion (feeling) as being distinct. I don't regard them as "opposite" as in "set against each other" but they are distinct elements of the mind. Which I hope I don't need to add is Ayn Rand's view too. I have no idea what your view is. I don't know what could be meant by "emotions are a component of reason", unless it's a poor attempt at a crafty way to sneak in emotionalism and call it "reason".

You're the one offering bizarre new views here, I think you're the one that should be doing the explaining. I just have the standard old definitions of reason and emotion that everyone uses.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

So you hold that the emotionless man with the lobotomy is able to reason correctly? As in exercise that means of survival that "makes him human"?

Is that the "standard old definition" you mean?

Michael

[sjw]

So you hold that the emotionless man with the lobotomy is able to reason correctly? As in exercise that means of survival that "makes him human"?

If you cut out part of someone's brain, no I'm not surprised that they can't reason correctly. You seem to be under the impression that we can cut out just emotions by cutting out part of the brain. I don't know why you believe that, but it's a very naive assumption and almost certainly not true.

But let's suppose you could just cut out the emotions. I still don't think they could reason correctly on a survival level. We need our emotions. Just like we need our reflexes, and we need our senses. But this is obvious, isn't it? I mean, emotions can be essential just as senses can be essential, without making them part of reason? They both feed reason with information and reason depends on them, but they aren't reason. I mean, this is obvious. How in the heck can you be so confused?

Is that the "standard old definition" you mean?

Misplaced sarcasm noted.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You seem to be under the impression that we can cut out just emotions by cutting out part of the brain. I don't know why you believe that, but it's a very naive assumption and almost certainly not true.

That statement is a good reason not to continue on this point. Please become properly informed and then we can continue. The scientific information is out there and has been for years.

For a start, here—Frontal lobe—is a brief Wikipedia discussion on psychosurgery (scroll down), i.e., severing the connection between the prefrontal lobe and the limbic system (the part in the brain that controls emotions). You take it from there.

But let's suppose you could just cut out the emotions. I still don't think they could reason correctly on a survival level. We need our emotions. Just like we need our reflexes, and we need our senses. But this is obvious, isn't it? I mean, emotions can be essential just as senses can be essential, without making them part of reason? They both feed reason with information and reason depends on them, but they aren't reason. I mean, this is obvious. How in the heck can you be so confused?

Shayne, I am having some doubts about the wisdom of lumping a bunch of different mental phenomena under the heading "emotions." The same goes for "reason." And even more doubts about which parts are opposites, which parts are complements and which parts are parts of the same mechanism. Things get a bit messy and not so pat once the mind-brain connection comes in. This is leading me to question certain premises. (And I hold that it is healthy to do so when doubts arise.)

But I will leave all this and even emotions for another time. Let's look at Rand and reason right now. You asked how I can be confused. Actually, it starts with Rand. Her use of the word "reason" is quite varied and it takes a lot of effort to maintain all the different contexts. Even then, some problems can be encountered with more subtle issues like the role of sensations and emotions in reason. Below are some quotes, without any pretension at being complete.

Reason as a mental faculty

I always understood Rand to mean the faculty of reason is made up of percepts, concepts and volition. She holds that volitional cognition starts with integration of percepts into concepts and considers that the integrations of sensations into percepts is automatic (and could even come under Barbara Branden's term, "psycho-epistemology"). Since Rand held reason to be volitional, and percept formation happens to be automatic, she usually did not include it in "reason." Still, integration of sensations into percepts is the raw material of reason and Rand fudges this exclusion right at the start. Here is a good example (Galt's speech, Atlas Shrugged, p 934):

Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.

Reason is the faculty that perceives ... the material provided by his senses? Hmmmm... Isn't perceiving the material provided by the senses the act of percept formation—the act of integrating percepts from sensations? She said clearly here that reason is the faculty that does this.

Here is another fudge, but a less clear one with a rather circular introduction. It seems that her concept of reason as a mental faculty is now drifting away from including percept formation, but it has not quite shaken it off ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 22):

The faculty that directs this process ["conceptualizing"], the faculty that works by means of concepts, is: reason. The process is thinking.

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

Still, integrating the material provided by man's senses is exactly what percepts do in Objectivism, so for the time being, percept formation would have to be an integral part of reason. But later, Rand rejected this and said "perceptual observation" was different from reason ("Concepts of Consciousness," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd edition, p. 35):

These concepts are formed by retaining their distinguishing characteristics and omitting their content. For instance, the concept "knowledge" is formed by retaining its distinguishing characteristics (a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation) and omitting the particular fact(s) involved.

This statement clearly states that they are different. A process of reason can be based on perceptual observation, but it is not the same. By using the expression (perceptual observation) twice, this difference is emphasized. Also, I am presuming that "a process of reason" is carried out by the "faculty of reason."

As percept formation is no longer a process of reason, the conclusion is that Rand no longer considers it part of the faculty of reason. There are more quotes I could garner to show where this is confusing, but this is enough for now.

Reason as volition

The double use of the word "faculty" below stretches the meaning beyond precision. Volition a now a full-fledged mental faculty, not just an integral part of the faculty of reason ("What is Romanticism?," The Romantic Manifesto, p. 105):

The still deeper issue, the fact that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, was not known at the time, and the various theories of free will were for the most part of an anti-rational character, thus reinforcing the association of volition with mysticism.

Setting aside the implied denial of the term "volition" for irrational choices (which is really strange), if you think this is a nitpick, look at the following quote where reason is equated with mind, and choice (volition) is equated with morality ("Racism," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 147):

Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

The implication here is that they are separate issues whereas volition was a part of reason before.

Reason contrasted with emotions

The normal impression you get in Objectivism is that reason is one thing and emotions are another. There are many quotes like the following where this understanding is presented clearly or implicitly ("The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 58):

In choosing his goals (the specific values he seeks to gain and/or keep), a rational man is guided by his thinking (by a process of reason)—not by his feelings or desires.

Yet Rand warns about "a lethal dichotomy" in separating the two ("Art and Moral Treason," The Romantic Manifesto, p. 148):

Thus the foundation of a lethal dichotomy is laid in his consciousness: the practical versus the moral, with the unstated, preconceptual implication that practicality requires the betrayal of one's values, the renunciation of ideals.

His rationality is turned against him by means of a similar dichotomy: reason versus emotion.

This goes way beyond stating that emotions are dominated by reason. If that was her intent, this passage is not as clear at all. It implies that no dichotomy exists between reason and emotions, at least no dichotomy that makes one be opposed to the other. And if no dichotomy exists, then they are integral (fundamental) parts of the same thing.

But Rand makes even another meaning ("Philosophy and Sense of Life", The Romantic Manifesto, p. 33):

And if there are degrees of evil, then one of the most evil consequences of mysticism—in terms of human suffering—is the belief that love is a matter of "the heart," not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy.

...

When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then—and only then—it is the greatest reward of man's life.

Now emotions are things that can be integrated with reason, not merely dominated by reason. There are even other meanings in other quotes, but these examples should indicate that Rand used several meanings for discussing reason and emotions in her writing, not just one.

Reason as a moral value

To add to the mix, Rand also uses reason as a moral value. If you think reason is a mental faculty for the brain like eyesight is for the eyes, this new use of the term can be very confusing. The faculty is treated like a principle. ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 27)

Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.

How can the faculty of reason itself be a moral value? Aren't we all born with it? We merely choose to use it properly or not. The proper use of reason is the moral value, not the actual component of the mind. So long as a man has a healthy brain, this component will exist. I suppose the faculty itself is a biological value that one "acts to keep" by simply keeping the organism healthy. But that is a far cry from the moral meaning Rand gave it here.

Reason as discussion and persuasion

In the following case, Rand uses reason to mean something else entirely, contrasting it with force ("The Nature of Government," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 108):

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

This meaning of reason does not even imply rational thought except as a normative idea. Rational persuasion is the best, but for this meaning of reason, plain old rhetoric will do—just so long as force is not used.

Reason as explanation

Then, to make sure that you always have to keep context in mind, Rand often used the word reason in its colloquial sense of being a cause or justification or purpose for something. Here are a couple of quotes to show you what I mean:

"The same reaction, for the same subconscious reason, is evoked by such elements as heroes or happy endings or the triumph of virtue, or, in the visual arts, beauty."

("What is Romanticism?," The Romantic Manifesto, p. 102)

"There is, however, an epistemological reason for the present designations, which we shall discuss when we discuss definitions."

("Abstraction from Abstractions," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd edition, p. 23)

So if you wonder how the heck I can be so confused, this is only part of the reason. I see a strong need to do some righteous premise checking for my own thinking. As reason is the cornerstone of Objectivism, this investigation is crucial. It is clear that Rand was not consistent in her definitions at times, and she used several different meanings for "reason" where the context needs to be specified for proper understanding.

Some of the issues I just raised about Rand's writings and reason in this post can easily be expanded into full articles. And all I have done is just get started. This subject is much broader than it seems at first.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Michael. That was needed. Well done! The structures and dynamics of the psyche that are subsumed under the headings "emotion" and "reason" are in great need of further exploration and understanding. Rand did not nail these. For that matter, nor did Branden or anyone else. This is the cause of much confusion and disagreement.

Paul

[jack9f]

In my first reading of this thread (today) I have to agree with MSK that balance should be our goal. I see the denial of emotions as very detrimental to our place in this world. Reason certainly separates us from the apes, but we are infused with emotions that control our actions to a great extent. As someone that has played “between the pipes” I can appreciate it when a winning goalie is described as been unconscious during a game and there can be little doubt that reason has little to do with a home run hit off of a 98 MPH fastball.

Even in our everyday lives of dealing with family and co-workers our emotions play a role and we need to acknowledge this not only to control them, but to put them to work in favor of what is right.

[Paul Mawdsley]

As someone that has played "between the pipes" I can appreciate it when a winning goalie is described as been unconscious during a game and there can be little doubt that reason has little to do with a home run hit off of a 98 MPH fastball.

I think Ivan has hit on a third element to be balanced/integrated: intuition. When it is said that an athlete is unconscious, it means he (or she) is in a state of intuitive flow with the game. How do reason, emotion, and intuition interact to cause behaviour? How ought they interact to cause behavior? And what are the underlying structures and dynamics of the psyche/brain that are emergent in what has been identified as "reason," "emotion," and "intuition?"

Paul

PS-- Sorry, Shayne. I've been trying to hold off writing anything until I was able to come back with something substantial on that new thread I promised. For medical reasons, I've been having trouble sitting at a computer recently. Nothing serious. I've been following this thread quietly (standing up) and had an impulse to interject. Modeling the dynamics of the psyche/brain is one of my favourite pastimes.

[sjw]

Michael, do you consider it at all possible that for the most part, you have done a very poor job at reading Rand? Some of your excerpts (mostly the ones on percepts) do seem like legitimate points to raise in the context of technical philosophy (but not in the context of the basic meaning of reason vs. emotion), but I don't see the others as confusing or contradictory, I see you as just not getting what she meant.

And anyways, you seem to be going through a lot of effort in order to not state what you think. If you think that sometimes emotion should trump reason, well then just say it. Of course, you probably don't want to, because reason and emotion are the same thing? Which would highlight the purpose of blending the two: to trump reason with emotion without admitting that's what you're doing.

Just look at what Ivan got out of what you said. Exactly that: emotion can properly trump reason.

Here's a guess as to why you are so mute on the subject of what you think: you're trying to practice what you preach. You're trying to talk about reason and emotion--while rejecting the distinction. Which leaves you unable to talk. So you just end up pointing out contradictions in Rand, most of which that aren't even there.

[sjw]

I see the denial of emotions as very detrimental to our place in this world.

The fact that you imply that anyone here holds that as an alternative is proof that you're embracing a false alternative that you simply refuse to let go of.

[sjw]

You seem to be under the impression that we can cut out just emotions by cutting out part of the brain. I don't know why you believe that, but it's a very naive assumption and almost certainly not true.

That statement is a good reason not to continue on this point. Please become properly informed and then we can continue. The scientific information is out there and has been for years.

Michael, I know the pretty colored pictures and models *look* like they're modular, but how about you look at a real brain. Then you'll realize that brain surgury is more of an art than a science, and our understanding of the brain is in its very early and primitive stages, and that slicing out part of a brain with a knife is going to do a lot more than merely disconnecting a person's emotions (given your position on reason/emotion "integration" I would think you'd be more skeptical about this kind of operation). And maybe, you'll learn not to lecture me about what science does and doesn't know.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Your reading skills are horrible at times. Then you compound lack of proper reading with even worse speculations. Dayaamm!

If you think that sometimes emotion should trump reason, well then just say it. Of course, you probably don't want to, because reason and emotion are the same thing?

I won't address your other incorrect speculations about my motives as this one is enough to show their falsity. Here is what I said very clearly: there should be balance and any so-called supremacy should be contextual. This is based on my own conclusion (drawn from a lot of reading) that both rational thought and emotions are fundamental and that one cannot function properly without the other. Look at the post below. It's very clear.

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 apparently buy into the all-context doublespeak of claiming that when an emotion kicks in and rules over reason for a survival purpose during a period of time, it is not ruling at all, it is really reason controlling it. That does not mean that I agree with this opinion. I don't like doublespeak and it gets me to start asking questions. As the lady said, A is A. That means it cannot be B. You also asked:

Michael, do you consider it at all possible that for the most part, you have done a very poor job at reading Rand?

Not at all. I think I have done a very good job of reading her. This little exercise was extremely useful for my own understanding. I intend to do more along these lines to clarify some other premises.

Some of your excerpts (mostly the ones on percepts) do seem like legitimate points to raise in the context of technical philosophy (but not in the context of the basic meaning of reason vs. emotion), but I don't see the others as confusing or contradictory, I see you as just not getting what she meant.

Once again, you are reading my posts poorly. I did not say all of the excerpts I presented were contradictory or confusing. What I actually stated was that some of them were, not all, and that the variety of meanings Rand used made it necessary to look at the context to understand the meaning correctly. If you read my words properly, you will see the qualifiers "often," "at times" and things like that.

I am very pleased with my post above. I like this premise-checking so much that I am going to start a new thread with it in "Chewing on Ideas." It grew as I did it and went way beyond a discussion of supremacy of reason over emotion versus balance of reason and emotion.

Michael

[sjw]

Your reading skills are horrible at times. Then you compound lack of proper reading with even worse speculations. Dayaamm!

On the contrary, yours are horrible. I said repeatedly that I didn't know what you were trying to say. It's not poor reading when I *know* I'm not sure whether I got what you meant.

I won't address your other incorrect speculations about my motives as this one is enough to show their falsity. Here is what I said very clearly: there should be balance and any so-called supremacy should be contextual.

A problem here is that you give no examples. "There should be a balance" sounds nice, but using normal definitions of reason and emotion, it's a stark contradiction that won't work in practice. The onus is on you to concretize this new "balance" idea with some examples, and how this squares with Objectivism and reality. It's not good enough to keep saying "balance, balance" over and over, as if I'm saying reason and emotion should be imbalanced!

This is based on my own conclusion (drawn from a lot of reading) that both rational thought and emotions are fundamental and that one cannot function properly without the other. Look at the post below. It's very clear.

This is an obvious non-sequitor. Just because reason doesn't function properly without emotions, does not imply that emotion is not properly made subordinate to reason. Again--give some examples.

You apparently buy into the all-context doublespeak of claiming that when an emotion kicks in and rules over reason for a survival purpose during a period of time, it is not ruling at all, it is really reason controlling it. That does not mean that I agree with this opinion. I don't like doublespeak and it gets me to start asking questions. As the lady said, A is A. That means it cannot be B.

Well, just because you are confused about the distinction between rapid decisions and emotion does not mean I'm engaging in double-speak. Rather than accusing me of double-speak, you should slow down and justify why you want to blend quick decisions (which proceed in the direction: mental grasp to conscious action) and emotions (which proceed in the direction: mental grasp to automatic feeling).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I gave an excellent example here on this very thread. All you have to do is read.

Even if there were no examples at all, that does not make your speculation (bordering on accusation)—that I promote emotion trumping reason (as a blanket statement true for all contexts)—correct. It is false at best. Actually it is arbitrary.

I started a new thread on Rand and reason. This is important. I want to move beyond "I said you said."

Michael

[sjw]

I gave an excellent example here on this very thread. All you have to do is read.

What example are you referring to?

Even if there were no examples at all, that does not make your speculation (bordering on accusation)—that I promote emotion trumping reason (as a blanket statement true for all contexts)—correct. It is false at best. Actually it is arbitrary.

No one says emotion should trump reason all the time, and I never accused you of that. I said you seemed to think that emotion should trump reason sometimes. Which is all any emotionalist ever does. He does what he feels like, when he feels like it, and follows reason when he feels like it.

I want to move beyond "I said you said."

So far you have not bothered to say what you mean in anything approaching practical terms, and that is all I am trying to get you to do. Yes I'm suspicious, because I think I understand the issue of reason vs. emotion quite well, and you're arguing for something other than the primacy of reason, which can only mean emotionalism (regardless of whether you want to call it "balance", which is truly double-speak). So I think you're off the deep end, I've reserved room for benefit of the doubt, but with each post you refuse to clarify, which makes me become firmer of the mind that you are just arguing for emotionalism in a sort of sneaky or hopelessly confused way. Take offense if you want, or answer if you want. If you can't see why I'd justifiably be suspicious given what you've said well I don't think you're being very honest.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When it is said that an athlete is unconscious, it means he (or she) is in a state of intuitive flow with the game. How do reason, emotion, and intuition interact to cause behaviour? How ought they interact to cause behavior? And what are the underlying structures and dynamics of the psyche/brain that are emergent in what has been identified as "reason," "emotion," and "intuition?"

Paul,

I have lived through several bouts of another automatic functioning of the mind: alcoholic blackouts. For example, when I was active, I sometimes drove for miles and had no recollection of how I got to my destination the next day.

I suppose you could say that I was using reason during the drive or that I was "really conscious" during it and only my memory became impaired, but that does not convince me of anything but speculation. Inside, I know my brain was on autopilot and that is scary. I could have killed someone without even being present to witness it or try to avoid it.

The human mind is a wondrous thing and sometimes it just won't fit into neat and tidy categories. It has its own nature and our primary job is to understand it as it exists, not as we would like it to be.

Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

I think of intuition as the faculty of causal reasoning. It is closely associated with your "Hunter" perspective. Such reasoning, using our imagination to visualize entities in context and in action, is only as good as the causal principles that are used. Use agent-to-action causation and you paint a picture of existence ruled by consciousness: that of gods, "Witch Doctors" and "Attilas. Use action-to-action causation and you create the worldview of science, but are unable to integrate will and volition, and must conclude causality is ultimately an illusion at the deepest levels of existence. Use a combination of agent-to-action causation with action-to-action causation and you necessarily end up with dualism.

Rand's greatest single conceptual accomplishment, the one that made all the others possible, was to identify a different causal principle from what has been accepted for the last two thousand years. Standing on Aristotle's shoulders, she identified the entity-to-action concept of causation. The act of developing and writing her fiction, using her imagination to visualize entities in context and in action, was an act of taking conscious control of her intuition and applying her faculty of causal reasoning. She was a visionary. She produced her vision by applying causal principles to shape the models of existence in her imagination. The result was The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Rand never identified the epistemological method that gave birth to her vision of existence and man. We need to understand this method and more precisely define the principles of causality that shape our visions of existence if we are to take our understanding to another level of integration. This will allow us to create new models to understand the structure and dynamics of the psyche and solve many of the disagreements over the relationship between reason and emotion.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You stated in your last post:

So far you have not bothered to say what you mean in anything approaching practical terms, and that is all I am trying to get you to do.

That is false, as given in the quote below. I could even do the rest in your manner and say that this makes me suspicious of your honesty, that you are evading, etc. But that is not my way.

I gave an excellent example here on this very thread. All you have to do is read.

What example are you referring to?

It's hard to discuss something with this as the procedure. I can do that too. Look:

What is it that you are unable to see?

Why bother discussing if this is what you are going to do?

For the record, I have no problem with separating reason and emotion when reason means "rational thinking" (which is a sort of layman's definition—unfortunately it is not the Objectivist one). As a mental process, that is one thing. My problem comes when reason is called a "faculty," "man's only means of survival," "what makes man human," etc. Then I have difficulty excluding emotions from those formulations, since the set of human emotions is obviously a survival mechanism and reason does not function for survival without emotions. No emotion, no valuing.

Michael

[sjw]

Well Michael deleted my response to him and cited the OL posting guidelines.

I'm not opposed to censoring people in principle. I just think that in an Objectivist forum, people shouldn't be censored when the rational connection is evident, when they're willing to back up what they're saying with facts and principles. I think that should be the line drawn, not the "civility" one drawn here, which is a really mushy standard that can only be implemented according to the whims of the moderator. On my standard I think Michael's last few posts to me are more deserving of censorship than mine (though I wouldn't censor him unless there was a more consistent pattern of him making assertions and not backing them up or clarifying). Note that my standard would naturally exclude gratuitious insults and character attacks as they wouldn't be able to be backed up. But it wouldn't prevent people for posting relevant insults if people have earned them.

It's his forum and he can do what he wants with it of course, but I don't like contributing where I'll be gagged for stating my honest assessment of things. In this culture one has to bite ones tongue in enough venues, I think Objectivists among each other ought to feel free to speak their mind, and the be judged according to how their thoughts correspond to reality, not whether what they said was "impolite". What's ironic is that even this culture has a rather large tolerance toward that, as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Penn & Teller, and Howard Stern.

[Rich Engle]

Shayne wonders why we put up with all these characters:

What's ironic is that even this culture has a rather large tolerance toward that, as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Penn & Teller, and Howard Stern.

Well, to paraphrase from Stern's film "Private Parts," we want to see what they are going to do next. That, and they are funny.

Forums like these are of course discussing serious ideas. But that doesn't mean one has to dress for a funeral.

You have a sour tone to people, Shayne. I don't understand it, but I do try to work through it and get to your ideas, which are often very engaging.

It can be an impediment, you simply don't see it yet. I used to write like this. I mean, that's it, sorry for the blatant cards on the table thing. It just doesn't feel good very often. Conversation is like sex-- it's supposed to be friendly.

[sjw]

Conversation is like sex-- it's supposed to be friendly.

1. Ick.

2. Oh, you mean how Michael answered my question rather than implying I'm dishonest?

The only reason I'm piled on for being rude or some such is because a) I'm consistent, and b) I call people on their nonsense. I am not the only one here who engages in "non-friendly" conversation.

And anyway, I disagree. Conversation should be honest first and foremost. If you want friendly regardless of what you do or say, go hire a hooker.

Edited January 18, 2007 by sjw