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

[Danneskjold]

First, most of us tend to think highly of people who agree with us or share our positions on issues we feel important. “We hardly find any persons of good sense except those who agree with us,” says a maxim of La Rochefoucauld. Even people for whom we have little regard miraculously become elevated when we realize that their feelings complement our own. Now suppose I have neutral feelings toward a person. If you and I become close friends and if you dislike that person, chances are good that I will dislike that person. It is difficult to remain neutral in the face of a strong counter-emotion.

Every rational person believes they are correct. This is because if they didn't believe they were correct they would change their views. So, naturally, when you meet someone who agrees with you, your regards for them are naturally elevated because you believe they are correct and therefore intelligent (not a huge jump to make).

In the case of a friend, you are friends with people, generally, who you admire values in or share the values of. When you meet someone who your friend abhors and that friend tells you why they abhor them it is natural for you, sharing the same values as your friend, to be inclined to agree with them.

I see nothing irrational about either of those, it seems like following either of those is making a rational decision. It is irrational to set your views, your regard for other people who share your views, or your opinion of another person that is based on a friend's, in stone.

Once again, it comes down to using them and not letting them control you.

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

It is easy to be wrong and at the same time to be convinced that we are right. Take the discussions of abstract painting for example. There were a few people who are absolutely convinced that abstract painting is art. Why? But because the colors are pretty and they derive some sort of pleasure from it—therefore it is art. [!!??] That is an emotion based conclusion. Meanwhile, I was examining the question by observing the etymology of the word ‘art’ [that comes from a Latin origin referring to ‘skill’ --THIS among other arguments presented]. It was suggested that I disvalue abstract painting -- which I regard as a pleasant design. Others wanted to confer the status of ‘art’ upon it. By this standard, you can bet your bottom dollar that if enough emotion was invested—lawn ornaments, blinking Jesus plaques and lava lights can become works of art too.

Look at this way: as much as I like dogs, Jeff, I don’t point to a rock and say “doggie!” You were one of the few people who was looking at the question of art with a genuine effort to comprehend the facts--not how you felt about this or that, but the facts. Now give me a high-five!

Yes, in the case of the friends--I am speaking of taking a dislike for a person not based on first-hand knowledge of that person, but rather due to a friend’s distain—and all in the effort to secure a greater connection. In my books, it is not only a possible rendering of injustice to the person inexplicably disliked, it is an emotion based dislike.

It is my conviction that careful and clear thinking requires a certain rigor. It is a skill, and, like any skill, it requires training, practice, and vigilance. Before one can use one’s reason, he should know the traps that are always awaiting the untutored mind. Rationalism and rationalization are not practices uncommon to intellectuals or ‘really smart people.’ A casual glance at reality will confirm this.

-Victor

Edited January 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Danneskjold]

Very true Victor, but you missed my point. We may be wrong, but we think we are right. Assuming we think we are right, we meet someone who agrees with us we think they're right. Regardless of whether or not we are right we believe them to be as well because we agree. So because we agree we think they are right and therefore think that they are intelligent. This is the rationality behind elevating our opinion of someone if we believe them to be right. Same with with friends as I outlined before. The key to being rational about a judgement is how objectively you look at the judgement you make. For instance it would be irrational for me to stonewall my opinion that someone is a bad person based on a second hand account, even if I share values with the person giving the account to me. It is not, however, illogical for me to approach them with more caution than I normally would have based on what I have heard about them from people with similar values to my own. I do not doubt that it is more than possible to be incorrect, I'm just saying that elevating or lowering opinion of someone is perfectly rational in those cases, the degree is what can be irrational.

[sjw]

You have called a number of people here, myself included, emotionalists and tolerationists. Does this mean that you think those of us you have labeled as such are "people who repress their emotions" and "who repress rational judgments?" Those people you have called tolerationist, I assume you would claim they are preaching toleration so they must be the "most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of [people]." Is this what you are saying about a number of the people here at OL? Is this what you are saying about me? I just want to get my facts straight about your point of view.

I wonder if you could tell me exactly what you mean by "emotionalist" and "tolerationist." It would help me to understand the principles behind your perspective. I also wonder if you would mind providing a list of those people here who you consider to fit these categories so I can consider what behaviour fits these principles. Your judgments of those around you and people's responses to those judgments have occupied quite a bit of space recently. I want to understand the principles and the evidence behind these judgments.

Did I call someone a tolerationist? If so, I'm sorry, it would have been more precise to say that I observed tolerationist/emotionalist positions popping up. I don't pretend to know anyone here that well.

What I mean by "emotionalist" is the standard fare. Someone who lets themselves be governed by their emotions (not 100% of the time--no one does that), and basks in the alleged morality of such. I don't count someone who from time to time lets their emotions get the best of them but regrets it and tries to improve.

"Tolerationist" is what I've been calling the behavior of being intolerant of rational judgments that happen to be negative to a degree that crosses an arbitrary line that they draw with their feelings (at which point they become hypocritically intolerant). This type of behavior is closely related to egalitarianism, pragmatism, and emotionalism. Egalitarianism, since they seem to think that everyone should be equally tolerated (except those who cross an arbitrary line--regardless of whether there was a rational basis or not); pragmatism, since rational principle is irrelevant to them; emotionalism, since at root they're just touchy, and that's why they preach these notions, also, because emotions not principle govern how they apply their tolerationism.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I'm not going to assert that I know with certainty who it applies to here.

[sjw]

My understanding of epistemology would never allow me to make such an assertion as, "Here is the correct view." I find it interesting that yours does. By what means does your perspective become absolute?

I regard it as certain that we do not have direct control over our emotions. We can elict them sometimes, indirectly, but we cannot choose them at will. I find it interesting that such propositions would be regarded by you as uncertain. I am not sure how to answer your question. I could answer simply and say: a rational epistemology. Obviously that wouldn't cut it if you were already unconvinced. Obviously I can't write a lecture on epistemology. So I'm not sure how you think I should answer you.

Maybe you could try to answer why you think my proposition above is uncertain, and I could tell you what I'm doing differently. E.g., maybe you are doing things like saying: "Well, *maybe* we can, and just haven't learned how yet." In which case I could answer why that is not a proper method.

[Danneskjold]

Why do people always do multiple posts in a row instead of editing their old one?

[Danneskjold]

Seems kinda pointless to me.

[Danneskjold]

Then again, who cares?

[Victor Pross]

I always thought of a "tolerationist" as one who tolerates all beliefs and opinions - except those with which he disagrees - or else someone who is a benevolent soul who advocates progressive measures for the sake of people with whom he would never associate...kind of like a liberal. B)

[sjw]

"tealing for the fun of it" is not an emotion. "[L]ying to get away from something we should be held accountable for" is not an emotion. These are action alternative intended to satisfy the impulse generated by an emotion such as a desire for imagined social acceptance or fear of intuitively visualized social consequences. The action alternatives are inappropriate, not the emotions.

I think you're partly right but quibbling with me. An inappropriate emotion is one that is elicited in a certain context but should not have been. The emotion as such is not inappropriate, and that is not what is referred to by "inappropriate emotion"; what is meant is "inappropriate to the situation." If I formulate it this way do you still disagree?

We can have different sets of chosen values: those chosen via symbolic (i.e.: logical) reasoning processes; and those chosen via intuitive (i.e.: causal) reasoning processes. It is the causal reasoning processes that are associated most closely with emotions. When these sets of values conflict, the symbolic reasoning that shapes our "conscious values" should not automatically be chosen over the intuitive reasoning that shapes the context in which or to which (depending on which orientation of consciousness one has at the time) our emotions respond. What is needed is an exploration of just what our intuitive perspective is so we can determine whether or not these two modes of reason are in alignment and, if they are not, which one holds the more representative view of reality.

There are elements of this I agree with, but I disagree with your terminology. Given your conceptualizations, I think a lot of this is on the right track, but I'd argue with those conceptualizations. E.g., to equate "intuitive" with "causal"--since when does intuition automatically correspond to a causal relation? Often intuition can be way off. Also, "symbolic" seems to strip away a lot of meaning from what I'd call "conceptual thinking". I think the better conceptualization is to talk about implicit vs. explicit knowledge. Emotions are very helpful at getting at the former. We touched on this agreement in a different thread.

Edited January 21, 2007 by sjw

[Danneskjold]

So I'm currently going through something that completely reminds me of this thread. The basic idea is that my friend is going out with this girl who I'm friends with as well. The basic idea is that my friend is quite possibly the worst boyfriend that doesn't cheat. He lies, he's a flake, he's inattentive, he doesn't try, and he just doesn't care. I want her to dump him, she won't. Why? Because her heart is telling her that he's the same guy that she started dating after one night when she met him in the park :getlost:. Her heart is in control, not her head. This is what happens when things go like that.

[Victor Pross]

So I'm currently going through something that completely reminds me of this thread. The basic idea is that my friend is going out with this girl who I'm friends with as well. The basic idea is that my friend is quite possibly the worst boyfriend that doesn't cheat. He lies, he's a flake, he's inattentive, he doesn't try, and he just doesn't care. I want her to dump him, she won't. Why? Because her heart is telling her that he's the same guy that she started dating after one night when she met him in the park :getlost:. Her heart is in control, not her head. This is what happens when things go like that.

Jeff, do you like this girl?

[Danneskjold]

I don't do pushovers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Have you tried slapping her around? That works enough with women to call it rational...

(ducking)

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Thanks for that Sean Connery. I'll make sure I give it a shot.

[Victor Pross]

“I never met a dame that didn’t understand a slap in the face or a slug from a .45.”

Humphrey Bogart.

[Dragonfly]

What does Branden will think will turn out wrong more:

Always following your heart?

Always following your mind?

A meaningless question, as that completely depends on the specific context, which will be different from case to case and from person to person. You can't assign probabilities to it. It's as silly as to ask what answer you'll give more often: "yes" or "no"?

think that necessarily contradicts Galt's statement. All Branden said there was (essentially), "think more about it, then follow your head."

Then you haven't understood Branden's statement. His point is that always "following your head" (i.e. that what you sincerely believe to be the rational argument for a certain course of action) against what your feelings tell you may lead to disaster, that sometimes your feelings may be a better guide to action. There is no simple formula for deciding what the best course is in a given situation (should I trust my feelings or should I disregard my feelings and follow my conscious convictions?), no one can guarantee that you'll always make the right decisions, and while no doubt in many cases the "rational" way will give the best results, this is by no means always true.

[Dragonfly]

Read NB's *Rand-endorsed* articles "The Objectivist" to see Rand's view. But you don't need to read that to see Dragonfly's bias here--quoting a single line of fiction and pretending that's Rand's complete advice on how to deal with emotions.

At least I give specific quotes to back up my argument that Branden later disagreed with Rand in that "feelings might reflect a more correct assessment of reality than conscious beliefs" (a statement with which Rand no doubt would have violently disagreed). That Rand's quote is "a single line of fiction" is not relevant: it is a general statement by John Galt, and we all know that Galt speaks for Rand; in fact she and her acolytes often refer to Galt's statements as representative for Objectivism. This statement is not something taken out of context, it completely in accordance with what she wrote elsewhere about emotions.

Not that Galt's advice isn't completely sound when read objectively: the mind is not some opposite thing from emotions, it *includes* the evaluation of the emotion, and the certainty of the conscious conviction.

And my argument was that NB later disagreed with that "certainty of the conscious conviction", which I proved by giving the relevant quote. The only thing you do is to give some vague reference to NB's articles in The Objectivist, which is completely useless and doesn't refute my argument.

Dragonfly's reading is totally non-objective and arbitrarily hostile of Rand.

Ah, the typical Randroid reasoning: if you disagree with Rand you must be "totally non-objective" and "arbitrary hostile of Rand". You haven't any rational argument left, so you resort to the usual ad hominem: someone who disagrees with Rand is "biased", "non-objective", "hostile" (all arbitrary epithets that you can't prove), and therefore supposedly his argument is not valid, so now you can evade the fact that you have no real answer.

[Danneskjold]

I bet if you asked Branden if he were to act on either emotion or reason 100% of the time, he'd choose reason. The thing about that statement is that it's retrospection. To me all it says is, don't expect everything to be perfect even if you do act rationally. That would be a stupid assumption anyway.

On the subject of women:

This website almost convinced me to be sexist. http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_quotes.htm

Some of the gems:

"Men are the enemies of women. Promising sublime intimacy, unequalled passion, amazing security and grace, they nevertheless exploit and injure in a myriad subtle ways. Without men the world would be a better place: softer, kinder, more loving; calmer, quieter, more humane." --Ann Oakley (b. 1944), British sociologist, author. Taking It Like a Woman, "A French Letter" (1984).

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room"

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys

[Dragonfly]

I bet if you asked Branden if he were to act on either emotion or reason 100% of the time, he'd choose reason.

I bet that Nathaniel Branden would refuse to accept the validity of the question, just as he would refuse the validity of the question "Will you stop beating your wife?"

[Mikee]

Regarding "Reason" vs "Emotion":

The situation is a little more nuanced than our arguments so far have taken into account. People can hold ideas in their minds that are not fully integrated. Rote learners do not even try to integrate. People who don't think independantly can be full of catch phrases which sound good to them but they don't really understand. Not everyone, perhaps not very many people, try to understand things on a very fundamental level, the basic principle level that hopefully most people who call themselves objectivists do. I think it's important to understand, if we are going to analyze every statement that Nathaniel Branden ever said, that he has dealt with in his therapy many people who hold contradictory ideas in their heads. Take a person who has a fairly good backround. By this I mean, came from a fairly rational culture or family of successful people. But this person has problems. Is a non-integrator. Is infatuated with "catch phrases". It might be very good advice to tell this person "If you feel conflicted, go with your emotions." Their pre-programmed "emotional" response to a situation may be more rational than their conflicted "reason".

I think that fully integrated ideas do not cause reason-emotion conflicts. But not many people are fully integrated. Following an idea that you don't understand blindly is more like following a religion than reasoning.

[Roger Bissell]

Dragonfly's reading is totally non-objective and arbitrarily hostile of Rand.

Ah, the typical Randroid reasoning: if you disagree with Rand you must be "totally non-objective" and "arbitrary hostile of Rand". You haven't any rational argument left, so you resort to the usual ad hominem: someone who disagrees with Rand is "biased", "non-objective", "hostile" (all arbitrary epithets that you can't prove), and therefore supposedly his argument is not valid, so now you can evade the fact that you have no real answer.

Looks like someone's been studying up on the ARI (Arrogant Randroid Institute) Training Manual. :-)

reb

[Dragonfly]

I think that the whole idea that someone can be "fully integrated" is a chimaera. We are all full of contradictory ideas and that's probably a good thing, as it gives us flexibility and may be the ultimate source of creativity. In mentally healthy individuals this will pose relatively little problems, as they've found a modus operandi that enables them to function well in most cases, you might compare it with a healthy market of ideas: not every idea is equally good, but there is general prosperity. The idea of a fully rational person is a floating abstraction that has no reference to reality.

[Danneskjold]

A clash between mind and emotions is a clash between two assessments, one of which is conscious, the other might not be. It is not invariably the case that the conscious assessment is superior to the subconscious one; that needs to be checked out. The point is not that we follow the voice of emotion or feeling blindly, it means only that we don’t dismiss our feelings and emotions so quickly; we try to understand what they may be telling us; we don’t simply repress, rather we try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling. We strive for harmony, for integration. We don’t simply slash away the pieces of ourselves that don’t fit our notion of the good or the right or the rational.

"We try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling" I cannot think of how you would do this with emotion, so I'll assume we use reason to do this. So we use reason to try to integrate/decide between two different ideas. So, in the end, we use reason to try and see if there is an integration between the two, or to see if reason makes more sense, or to see if emotion makes more sense. If emotion makes more sense (as could very well be the case) then you have used reason to figure that out. You are still listening primarily to your mind, you're just being pointed in the right direction by emotion. In the end it's still the mind, or both that you're listening to in Branden's scenario. Based on that, Galt's statement holds true. Maybe the difference is that Rand was writing a novel.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Regarding "Reason" vs "Emotion":

The situation is a little more nuanced than our arguments so far have taken into account.

Mike,

What I am suggesting is a fundamental paradigm shift that can better account for the nuances than existing paradigms do. The problem with suggesting a paradigm shift is that people will try to evaluate it from within existing paradigms. This won't work. A dyadic approach to understanding and evaluating a new paradigm will not work. Only a dialectic approach can work in assessing a proposed new paradigm. The foundation of the paradigm shift I am formulating is found in the view that the dynamic images that emerge from our intuition are shaped by the principles of identity and causality we adopt. When we take conscious control of these processes, I call it causal reasoning. If we use new principles of identity and causality, we will shift our intuitive perspective. This also means we will shift our perspective on the structure and dynamics of the human psyche.

Paul

Edited January 21, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley