Woman and Man

[dan2100]

Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?

Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.

This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.

Tony

For the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism. Rather I was trying to be clear about how any evolutionary influence on this or that part of human nature might be addressed.

Dan, In that case I'll curb my impatience. I do enjoy learning from others' (and your) theoretical knowledge, but also have a tendency to rush ahead in pursuit of the philosophical angles, and practical applications.

Tony

I'm unsure what you mean here. I was also confused, as Brant seems to have been, about how you drew that conclusion -- that I was a determinist of any sort, including the biological sort.

[Brant Gaede]

Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?

Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.

This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.

Tony

I don't know how you inferred this from what I wrote.

--Brant

True, I dealt you in though you weren't even at the table.

Sorry; but how do you see this subject of Man either being a slave to his past and his pre-cortex, visa-vis having the capability to command his own Human Nature?

Within genderism, or more broadly?

Tony

Man is a "slave" to his nature. Man is a "slave" to reality. The family of man includes both sexes. Since there is a sexist bias to the language people should be more sensitive to this as partial compensation.

Determinism is what you see in the rear view mirror: Oh! Things could not have been different! But we live and drive optimally by generally looking ahead and using our GOD-granted FREE WILL and reasoning abilities and courage to make optimal choices according to our knowledge and suppositions and morality and general hedonistic, egoistic proclivities qua man qua man (or qua woman qua woman) all bathed in what integrity we bring to the table.

Brant

ranty rant rant

[Christopher]

What, you guys don't believe in biological determinism?

I tell you that from the moment of conception, I was determined to be a man!

[Brant Gaede]

What, you guys don't believe in biological determinism?

I tell you that from the moment of conception, I was determined to be a man!

When did they operate?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

dup

Edited March 11, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?

Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.

This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.

Tony

I don't know how you inferred this from what I wrote.

--Brant

True, I dealt you in though you weren't even at the table.

Sorry; but how do you see this subject of Man either being a slave to his past and his pre-cortex, visa-vis having the capability to command his own Human Nature?

Within genderism, or more broadly?

Tony

Man is a "slave" to his nature. Man is a "slave" to reality. The family of man includes both sexes. Since there is a sexist bias to the language people should be more sensitive to this as partial compensation.

Determinism is what you see in the rear view mirror: Oh! Things could not have been different! But we live and drive optimally by generally looking ahead and using our GOD-granted FREE WILL and reasoning abilities and courage to make optimal choices according to our knowledge and suppositions and morality and general hedonistic, egoistic proclivities qua man qua man (or qua woman qua woman) all bathed in what integrity we bring to the table.

Brant

ranty rant rant

Brant,

An elegant, succinct summary, and thank you for it.

Do you not agree that there's one more 'layer' on top of this?

It is also Man's nature (his reality) to be self-observing, self-conscious. He can redirect his inward search, as he simultaneously views the outer world.

His temporary conclusions develop into further conclusions.

And these are all the while firming and fixing his Vision of existence.

I believe a man has the capability to 'rise above himself'- not I must add, in any way mystical - but to change (redirect) his 'instinctive' and biological knee-jerk reactions.

This is my reading of Rand's "a being of self-made soul", and it is borne out by personal experience.

To try to summarise: It is in my nature to own the capability to command my Nature.

(This power is as REAL as Man's evolutionary roots, or his hunter-gatherer predisposition. But how relevant are these by comparison?)

So it's the same for every individual; it only requires the knowledge, and the effort.

Reality is an exciting place, and much broader and deeper than we often think.

Tony

[Xray]

If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth.

Yes the claim is about truth. The truth being that objectively knowable reality implies no mandate to accept the illusion of objective value.

Merlin Jetton Xray-speak Xray preaches against "objective values." However, a little analysis shows that her preaching is really against "universal values", i.e. values all subjects would choose independent of time, place, and circumstances. For example, see here. Moreover, using "objective values" affords her the opportunity to attack Ayn Rand's moral philosophy, whereas "universal values" does not.

My interest in preaching is zero since I have no faith to sell. I'll leave that to the believers.

I use "objective" value because Rand used it to establish her opposition objective vs subjective, erroneously labeling everything subjective as whimsical, etc.

You can as well decide to call them "universal" values, it makes not difference.

BG: No man qua man for her; it's all individual people only whose various act of valuing create the (subjective) value.

Furthermore I have pointed out that an objective value like food was valued differently at different times and circumstances and that the subjective aspect of the value was how much, which varied, but still underlying the subjective value and valuing was the foundational objective value.

Biological needs are objective facts, not chosen values. For example, your organism must have nourishment to survive, no matter whether you value this fact or not. There is no choice to survive without ingesting food.

Dan Ust: For the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism.

Nor do I. For human history is also a history of breaking free from biological 'deterministic' cycles. Using birth control for example makes it possible for humans to disconnect sexuality from its 'natural' biological consequence (procreation).

Imo Rand was in error with her "ought to from is" approach. Since there exist no "ought to from is" in nature, it is wrong to derive any "ought to" from an "is" in prescriptive ethics justifying it with "nature".

Edited March 11, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Imo Rand was in error with her "ought to from is" approach. Since there exist no "ought to from is" in nature, it is wrong to derive any "ought to" from an "is" in prescriptive ethics justifying it with "nature".

Then where do we get the "ought to" from? We ought not to get an ought to from an is because there's no is for ought?

--Brant

[Selene]

Imo Rand was in error with her "ought to from is" approach. Since there exist no "ought to from is" in nature, it is wrong to derive any "ought to" from an "is" in prescriptive ethics justifying it with "nature".

Then where do we get the "ought to" from? We ought not to get an ought to from an is because there's no is for ought?

--Brant

There is a limerick in there Brant!

[tjohnson]

Then where do we get the "ought to" from?

We get it from our goals. We ought to behave in ways to accomplish whatever it is we set out to do.

[Brant Gaede]

Then where do we get the "ought to" from?

We get it from our goals. We ought to behave in ways to accomplish whatever it is we set out to do.

What ought to be our goals? Why? Isn't there some ises in there someplace? Because of this one ought to do that?

--Brant

look, ought doesn't mean no choices--because of this, one ought to do that or that or that--because of this or that, one ought to do something--or nothing--the fallacy of "is" can result in no "ought" is that is and ought are two completely different things--all you get from is is choices based on facts and one ought to make a choice; that's what the brain is there for--or is means you ought to use your brain; you ought to understand; you're biologically made for survival (to reproduce); you ought to think

[tjohnson]

What ought to be our goals? Why? Isn't there some ises in there someplace? Because of this one ought to do that?

--Brant

look, ought doesn't mean no choices--because of this, one ought to do that or that or that--because of this or that, one ought to do something--or nothing--the fallacy of "is" can result in no "ought" is that is and ought are two completely different things--all you get from is is choices based on facts and one ought to make a choice; that's what the brain is there for--or is means you ought to use your brain; you ought to understand; you're biologically made for survival (to reproduce); you ought to think

That's the million dollar question, what ought to be our goals? What ideals should humans strive for? Here is where Korzybski and Rand have something in common. Korzybski said (1933) we have a highly evolved cerebral cortex and so we ought to use it. Well, guess what the result of using your cerebral cortex is? it's slows down your animalistic reactions and makes you think - sounds something like becoming rational. The difference is Korzybski uses sanity as his modus operandi whereas Rand uses morality. So, in one case you have "If you want to be sane, do this" and in the other you have "if you want to be moral, do this". Of course there are other differences as well, but that's a big one.

[Christopher]

GS, that's a very nice comparison.

I still can't get it out of my head that Rand used morality as a focal point, but it isn't that morality is some arbitrary thing in the universe. Morality is something that has experiential tangibility. Even though Rand provided a definition of morality, she provided a definition of morality within a system where morality was already present. In other words, she was attempting to identify something that already exists.

She tried to identify morality with a pretty nice definition, but she might be wrong. After all, she provides no arguments that her definition of morality is an accurate identification of what morality is from an evolutionary perspective. Sure, I agree that Objectively humans should live life for themselves. I even feel it's moral. Now whether or not Rand's definition accurately identifies the purpose for which moral phenomena evolved is another question!

Chris

[BaalChatzaf]

That's the million dollar question, what ought to be our goals? What ideals should humans strive for? Here is where Korzybski and Rand have something in common. Korzybski said (1933) we have a highly evolved cerebral cortex and so we ought to use it. Well, guess what the result of using your cerebral cortex is? it's slows down your animalistic reactions and makes you think - sounds something like becoming rational. The difference is Korzybski uses sanity as his modus operandi whereas Rand uses morality. So, in one case you have "If you want to be sane, do this" and in the other you have "if you want to be moral, do this". Of course there are other differences as well, but that's a big one.

Each of us answers that question for himself.

I have run into big Oh Objectivists who think there is a moral issue in choosing which flavor ice cream to eat.

I believe morality/ethics is regulative and its proper scope and objective is how to relate to other persons. I am of the school which believes there is no morality on an island with only one human inhabitant. Why? Because there is no one else to wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Day]

On the point of Dominique, she is clearly a mentally troubled woman for most of the novel and it wouldn't be out of character for her to make exaggerated claims, especially if her goal for much of the novel is destroy Roark by any means necessary.

Does anyone else have the suspicion that one can rise above one's own gender-nature?

To what extent? A man could never get pregnant and a woman could never play in the NFL. Social constructs have prevented women from achieving for most of history, but those social constructs where based on outdated prehistoric gender differences that were once critical for survival. I contend that the Industrial Revolution made feminism possible because it reduced the need for gender roles.

Also, I feel like Dagny Taggart is one of the most compelling feminist characters in fiction. It's made clear that her being a woman prevents her from being taken seriously by the other executives at Taggart Transcontinental, but rather than whining, she just goes out and proves her worth. Additionally, while I disagree with the conclusions of "About a Woman President," Rand does make it known that she considers a "'clinging vine' type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men."

[anthony]

On the point of Dominique, she is clearly a mentally troubled woman for most of the novel and it wouldn't be out of character for her to make exaggerated claims, especially if her goal for much of the novel is destroy Roark by any means necessary.

Does anyone else have the suspicion that one can rise above one's own gender-nature?

To what extent? A man could never get pregnant and a woman could never play in the NFL. Social constructs have prevented women from achieving for most of history, but those social constructs where based on outdated prehistoric gender differences that were once critical for survival. I contend that the Industrial Revolution made feminism possible because it reduced the need for gender roles.

Also, I feel like Dagny Taggart is one of the most compelling feminist characters in fiction. It's made clear that her being a woman prevents her from being taken seriously by the other executives at Taggart Transcontinental, but rather than whining, she just goes out and proves her worth. Additionally, while I disagree with the conclusions of "About a Woman President," Rand does make it known that she considers a "'clinging vine' type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men."

John,

Yes, a pertinent reminder of AR's opinion of the subservient, and power-motivated woman.

I avoid invoking the 'age' thing, but perhaps my line of enquiry makes more sense to men and women in their 50's and older.

There is a quite special (and slightly sad B) ) stage in a person's life when sexuality and procreation does not wield the same power it used to.

Actually, for a thinking person, it is very liberating.

I've found that SOME men, and SOME women then grow into their own.

(A favourite saying of mine is "Youth is for adventures of the body, but age for the triumphs of the mind" - by LP Smith.)

Both genders seem to 'intersect' at this stage - their common humanity, and rationality, could, or should I believe, jump the gap that has previously been a chasm. Biology and 'custom' do force us apart, I believe.

No, it's not common, but to discover an attractive woman who has self-evolved to more complete individuality (and is not some kind of New Age mystic, as many become) is extremely gratifying. And as always, vive la difference!

If it's attainable at this point, why can't it be possible earlier? Or is our Nature and social conventionality too strong for us... and can't the mind transcend these bullies?

Tony