Pain? Joy? Benevolent universe premise?

[Xray]

I'm sure I'm echoing what others have said on different posts, but here it is again (on the benevolent universe concept):

Benevolence is how man perceives the universe (not how the universe is per se) because:

Man is built to survive in the universe

Man is motivated to survive through positive experience

Therefore, through survival man has positive experiences and perceives that the universe is benevolent.

Or another way to put it: man's biology is situated to thrive in the universe (per Evolution). Therefore, more often then not man is expected to succeed than to fail, to win than to lose, to survive than to die. Thus, the universe feels like it operates with the cards stacked in his favor (i.e. benevolent).

Christopher

And what about the the "prospect" for the "benevolent universe" according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics when it will dissolve into atoms again?

And long before that happens, our sun will have perished.

[Xray]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species.

Imo Rand's "life proper to man" is just such a collectivist idea too.

As for "man" - isn't the idea of a "collective being", a "collective identity", a contradiction of individual identity?

For what is always manifest is individual identity no matter what. Doesn't the reality of individual identity deny a collective label "man"?

And what room is there is there left for individualism in view of Rand's list of alleged "objective values and virtues"?

Edited May 23, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species.

Imo Rand's "life proper to man" is just such a collectivist idea too.

As for "man" - isn't the idea of a "collective being", a "collective identity", a contradiction of individual identity?

For what is always manifest is individual identity no matter what. Doesn't the reality of individual identity deny a collective label "man"?

And what room is there is there left for individualism in view of Rand's list of alleged "objective values and virtues"?

The category Man has certain essential properties of Man at its definition. One may well ask what conditions, ends, purposes and activities are proper for any entity having these properties. For example, Man is an air breathing mammal, therefore breathing an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen is not only proper for Man's existence (meaning any man's existence, but necessary). There is nothing collectivist about this. It is just plain biology 101.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species.

Imo Rand's "life proper to man" is just such a collectivist idea too.

As for "man" - isn't the idea of a "collective being", a "collective identity", a contradiction of individual identity?

For what is always manifest is individual identity no matter what. Doesn't the reality of individual identity deny a collective label "man"?

And what room is there is there left for individualism in view of Rand's list of alleged "objective values and virtues"?

Korzybski approaches this problem by trying to start a science of man, which he called general semantics. Korzybski introduces a theory of sanity that applies to all humans based on the structure and function of human nervous systems as opposed to limited animal nervous systems. Every "concrete" noun, like 'tree', is an abstraction in which differences are ignored while similarities are emphasized. In mathematics there are methods that maintain the individuality of members of a set while also acknowledging their membership, like the subscript. So you can have a set of men consisting of man₁, man₂, man₃,..., man_n, for example. The 'man' denotes the class and the subscript denotes the unique individual.

[Xray]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species.

Imo Rand's "life proper to man" is just such a collectivist idea too.

As for "man" - isn't the idea of a "collective being", a "collective identity", a contradiction of individual identity?

For what is always manifest is individual identity no matter what. Doesn't the reality of individual identity deny a collective label "man"?

And what room is there is there left for individualism in view of Rand's list of alleged "objective values and virtues"?

The category Man has certain essential properties of Man at its definition. One may well ask what conditions, ends, purposes and activities are proper for any entity having these properties. For example, Man is an air breathing mammal, therefore breathing an atmosphere with sufficient oxygen is not only proper for Man's existence (meaning any man's existence, but necessary). There is nothing collectivist about this. It is just plain biology 101.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The biological facts apply to every individual entity belonging to the category "man" - that's correct.

Then and only then can one make global statements regarding a category - when they apply without exception to all entities comprised in it.

But where things get tricky is when a laundry list of subjectively chosen ethical "values" ("Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem") and "virtues" (Rationality, Productiveness, Pride) are declared as "objective" and proper to "man".

For when speaking about "life proper to man", Rand did not have biological necessities in mind like man's adequate oxygen intake. What she had in mind was that everyone "ought to" value what she prefers. Ethical values require a valuer, hence any ethical value can't be anything but subjective.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

Yes, it's hard to stay out of "collectivist land" when you start prescribing what is best for the species.

Imo Rand's "life proper to man" is just such a collectivist idea too.

As for "man" - isn't the idea of a "collective being", a "collective identity", a contradiction of individual identity?

For what is always manifest is individual identity no matter what. Doesn't the reality of individual identity deny a collective label "man"?

And what room is there is there left for individualism in view of Rand's list of alleged "objective values and virtues"?

Korzybski approaches this problem by trying to start a science of man, which he called general semantics. Korzybski introduces a theory of sanity that applies to all humans based on the structure and function of human nervous systems as opposed to limited animal nervous systems. Every "concrete" noun, like 'tree', is an abstraction in which differences are ignored while similarities are emphasized. In mathematics there are methods that maintain the individuality of members of a set while also acknowledging their membership, like the subscript. So you can have a set of men consisting of man₁, man₂, man₃,..., man_n, for example. The 'man' denotes the class and the subscript denotes the unique individual.

GS -

There is no "problem." Unless by problem you are referring to Xray's continuing practice taking snippets of quotes from Rand or Branden and then attempting to interpret them out of context and with altered interpretations of the terms in those quotes (in spite of Rand's provided definitions).

Bill P

[Xray]

GS -

There is no "problem." Unless by problem you are referring to Xray's continuing practice taking snippets of quotes from Rand or Branden and then attempting to interpret them out of context and with altered interpretations of the terms in those quotes (in spite of Rand's provided definitions).

Please quote Rand's "provided definitions" regarding her alleged objective "values" ("Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem") and "virtues" (Rationality, Productiveness, Pride"). Edited May 24, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

GS -

There is no "problem." Unless by problem you are referring to Xray's continuing practice taking snippets of quotes from Rand or Branden and then attempting to interpret them out of context and with altered interpretations of the terms in those quotes (in spite of Rand's provided definitions).

Please quote Rand's "provided definitions" regarding her alleged objective "values" ("Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem") and "virtues" (Rationality, Productiveness, Pride).

Links already provided. If you are serious, you will read them.

Bill P

[Xray]

GS -

There is no "problem." Unless by problem you are referring to Xray's continuing practice taking snippets of quotes from Rand or Branden and then attempting to interpret them out of context and with altered interpretations of the terms in those quotes (in spite of Rand's provided definitions).

Please quote Rand's "provided definitions" regarding her alleged objective "values" ("Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem") and "virtues" (Rationality, Productiveness, Pride).

Links already provided. If you are serious, you will read them.

Bill P

Would you care to reprovide them here so we can compare notes?