A Post-Randian Thinker Has Found His Home (Maybe)

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

[Reidy]

In #25 you are definitely using your meaning of "altruism" and not Rand's. When she talked about egoism and altruism she was very clear that she meant chosen behaviors that don't (until we've learned them) occur to us automatically. Another point is that altruism was, for her, the choice to forfeit a higher value for a lesser, not just generosity or actions that somebody else benefits from. I think she made a good case for this distinction, and the burden is on you to make a better case against it.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Reidy

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I'm not sure Rand and Branden (i.e. the "classic," Objectivist Branden) disagree with modern biology about instinct. They freely admit that we have innate needs and an innate pleasure-pain capacity by means of which we become aware of those needs. This may be just what biology means by the term. By contrast, the Objectivist literature means something more like an innate but propositionally-statable knowledge of the right actions to undertake in order to satisfy our needs. In that case, you might criticize them for using a non-standard definition that makes a strawman of "instinct" and turns their position into a tautology, but not for being biologically wrong. Your example of Rand's years-long coverup is a case in point. Her sense of comfort and discomfort motivated her to behave as she did, but they did not lay out a course of action, including the one that she took, or force her to take it.

This has some parallels with the dispute about self-esteem between Branden and Roy Baumeister et al. They attach quite different meanings to the term and so aren't directly contradicting each other. They agree that getting drunk and beating people up is not a recipe for the good life, but they disagree as to whether self-esteem enjoins us to behave this way. A more interesting question is whose definition is better thought-through.

A more distant parallel is to Locke's critique of innate ideas. He conceded that we are born with a few prenatal impressions but still maintained that we aren't born with statable knowledge. A teacher of mine once said that Locke was directing his critique against some contemporaries known as the Cambridge Platonists and that such prenatal impressions are just what they meant, which would make Locke's notion a strawman.

I suspect that Rand was responding to a Kantian idea rather than to the biological meaning of "instinct." I should explore this…

My link

But, frankly, I don't want to explore Kant today.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I'd say post-Randian starts, at the latest, when Nathaniel Branden started publishing after his excommunication - The Disowned Self in 1971. Psychology of Self-Esteem doesn't count because it was virtually all material from the NBI / Objectivist period. Rand's definitive statement on who counts as an Objectivist (actually written by Branden) was in The Objectivist Newsletter in 1965. At the time it was reserved to her and Branden, though, in the future, professional intellectuals who applied and expanded the theory would also count.

Happy to see that you know how to use "kudos."

Sorry, I'm an amateur intellectual. Never made a dime from my ideas.

[anthony]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

Quite apart from the difference between Comptean/Randian altruism, and "instinctual altruism",as JDL rightly points out, I'm expecting that scientists discover the 'inherent egoist gene', any day now.( ;) )

Sometimes those scientists play catch-up to philosophy.

Her ideas still stand, Bob.

Welcome, Jonathan.

Tony

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

Quite apart from the difference between Comptean/Randian altruism, and "instinctual altruism",as JDL rightly points out, I'm expecting that scientists discover the 'inherent egoist gene', any day now.( ;) )

Sometimes those scientists play catch-up to philosophy.

Her ideas still stand, Bob.

Welcome, Jonathan.

Tony

Thanks for the welcome. By "inherent egoist gene," are you referring to This?

BTW, Dawkins is no post-Randian.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Jonathan David Leavitt

[anthony]

Quite apart from the difference between Comptean/Randian altruism, and "instinctual altruism",as JDL rightly points out, I'm expecting that scientists discover the 'inherent egoist gene', any day now.( ;) )

Sometimes those scientists play catch-up to philosophy.

Her ideas still stand, Bob.

Welcome, Jonathan.

Tony

Thanks for the welcome. By "inherent egoist gene," are you referring to This?

BTW, Dawkins is no post-Randian.

No, I only know of 'The Selfish Gene' by reputation.

I did find 'The God Delusion' valuable, but also pretty frustrating that Dawkins would not get past conventional altruist mores.

What could you call him: a post-secular-humanist?

Tony

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Quite apart from the difference between Comptean/Randian altruism, and "instinctual altruism",as JDL rightly points out, I'm expecting that scientists discover the 'inherent egoist gene', any day now.( ;) )

Sometimes those scientists play catch-up to philosophy.

Her ideas still stand, Bob.

Welcome, Jonathan.

Tony

No, I only know of 'The Selfish Gene' by reputation.

I did find 'The God Delusion' valuable, but also pretty frustrating that Dawkins would not get past conventional altruist mores.

What could you call him: a post-secular-humanist?

Tony

Dawkins is a militant atheist and anti-religion, but websites suggest that he's some kind of light-weight lefty. (Is there any other kind outside of North Korea?)

[kiaer.ts]

For the same reason that I grant Walt Disney's estate the privilege of defining who Mickey Mouse® is. Forgive me for omitting the ® whenever I write "Objectivism®" Bad habit.

—Jonathan

Hmmm…: Trademark symbol. It seems that it can be used only if registered with a statist entity, no matter how minarchistically inclined. I wonder if ARI has registered Objectivism with the US government, in which case, it would be called Objectivism®. I would ask Leonard Peikoff to respond in a podcast, but I know how busy he his solving the Problem of Induction while finishing up the DIM Hypothesis book and fending off the likes of McCaskey. Since Objectivism is known to be the work of Ayn Rand, perhaps caution demands that I call it Objectivism™.

Am I perhaps being unfair by taking you too seriously here? I do get the attempts at cuteness and irony. LOL. But while your complaint seems to have an underlying justification, your solution amounts to taking your opponents' position (that Peikoff gets to define what is Objectivism) for granted and then throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not simply reject his claim out of hand and insist on defining Objectivism as "reality, reason, egoism, capitalism"?

If one defines Objectivism as a philosophy based on the primacy of existence and the hierarchical nature of abstraction, do you consider yourself a post-Objectivist? If so, can you specify your actual disagreement with the doctrines, rather than your disdain for the disputants?

Although my sense of irony is not lacking in my prior statements, I do think that there is a useful role for a "fly-in-amber" preservation of Ayn Rand's philosophical corpus. If that is what ARI purports to be, I support that goal. Since Rand named her philosophical work "Objectivism" I have no problem with that name being maintained as her contribution to the history of philosophy. That is the "closed system" view, which allows me to call myself a post-Randian. Since Karl Marx reportedly stated, "I am not a Marxist," and I doubt that Jesus of Nazareth would have called himself a Christian, Rand did not want to be called a Randian. She did, however, lay claim to the name of Objectivism.

Be that as it may, ARI under its present leadership has not explicitly defended its "fly-in-amber" Objectivist mission. It seems to me that the solution to the problem of induction is a post-Randian endeavor, not an Objectivist one. Perhaps a role for ARI could be more clarification of the Objectivist doctrines, as distinguished from Ayn Rand's personal tastes.

As for my own disagreement with the doctrines, there is relatively little, and most of it has to do with Rand's sweeping disparagement of whatever she disliked, especially in esthetics and her views about sex. Peikoff himself has said in his podcasts that there is room for disagreement, but then he appears to assume that an Objectivist must reject the work of Picasso.

As for anyone else using the term "Objectivist" to describe their own ideas derived from or associated with Rand's, I have no problem with that. I do not support thought control and I do support freedom of speech. My decision to eschew labeling myself an Objectivist is strictly personal, and it may well be temporary.

Addendum: in a reply to Baal-Chatzaf, I said that I disagree with Rand's assertion that man has no instincts. I believe that all members of the species of homo sapiens have instincts like any other vertebrate, although they also possess a rational faculty. In fact, I believe that it was Rand's own instincts, not her rational faculty, which led her into the disastrous covered-up love affair with Nathaniel Branden. However, in her "no instincts" assertion, she might have meant man qua man that has no instincts. In an essay she described second-handers as an evolutionary "missing link." However, as a biologist, I believe that all vertebrates have instincts, but the word "instinct" itself is problematic.

Wikipedia discussion of instincts. Innate ideas? Are "kill!" or "eat!" or "have sex with!" innate ideas? IMO that is a very post-Randian question.

That is broadly my position. I believe her top-down theory of values was wrong, and hence her assumption that if people reasoned the same as her they would like the same things she liked is flawed.

You are exactly right to bring up the question of instincts. But do be aware that the notion of instincts as built in knowledge is not held by biologists. Rather, certain things are innate to the pleasure-pain mechanism, so that it feels good to do certain things. I.e. animals do not know how to have sex or that sugar is a nutrient, rather they experience self-reinforcing pleasure when the eat sweet things or rub up against another of their species.

As for Objectivism, being an Objectivist, I define things by their essences, not by authority. Objectivism is the philosophical system based on the primacy of existence and the rejection of the stolen concept which advocates realism, reason, egoism, and free-market capitalism. That Rand developed it is a historical fact, but has nothing to do with it qua philosophy.

[George H. Smith]

Freud somewhere said, in effect, that we call something an "instinct" when we cannot explain it.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

I thought Rand’s meta-ethics depended on the idea that man doesn’t/can’t survive on his instincts, which is not the same as denying some exist. On the other hand, I do recall Peikoff enunciating a very strong “tabula rasa” formulation in the ‘76 course.

[Reidy]

Branden said much the same thing as Freud in "Does Man Possess Instincts?" He cited an example of how satisfaction/irritation capacities can explain apparently instinctual behavior (salmon swimming upstream in season) and referred to the notion as "a dumping-ground for unexplained behavior."

I think something similar is at work when we invoke the moral rightness or wrongness of some course of action as a reason to choose it (or not). Instinct looks like an informative causal explanation but turns out on closer examination not to be. It means at best, "the animal behaves this way because of the factors that make it behave this way." Likewise, to invoke morality as a reason to act is to say, at best, "you ought to do this because of all the reasons why you ought to do this." It looks like a justification but really isn't. In both cases you can, with sufficient effort, give reasons, but you really haven't when you use these concepts in these ways.

[kiaer.ts]

The original sense of instinct was innate knowledge, such as the knowledge of how to build a nest, or of how return to the stream in which you were born. That idea has long been discredited. Animals have simple action patterns guided by a pleasure and pain reward mechanism just as do humans. Babies are born taking pleasure from sweetness and touch, not with the knowledge that sugar is nutritive and the knowldege that the care of a mother beneficial.

Moths don't believe they should fly into the light, birds don't believe they should fly south in the winter, fish don't have any idea why the water in one direction tastes better than the wtter in another direction. Not taught to do so, boys will learn to masturbate on their own, without any idea of what they are doing.

If you want to go revisionist and apply the name instinct to built-in reward systems that drive an animal toward a certain behavior, feel free. In the end, the question is a scientific one, and you won't find any serious scientists weighing in on the side of instinct, regardless of how behind the times folk wisdom on the subject, or those who speak of "premises" causing sexual preference may be.

There are inborn tendencies to find certain stimuli more pleasurable than others. There is no evidence of inborn knowledge anywhere.

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

The original sense of instinct was innate knowledge, such as the knowledge of how to build a nest, or of how return to the stream in which you were born. That idea has long been discredited. Animals have simple action patterns guided by a pleasure and pain reward mechanism just as do humans. Babies are born taking pleasure from sweetness and touch, not with the knowledge that sugar is nutritive and the knowldege that the care of a mother beneficial.

Moths don't believe they should fly into the light, birds don't believe they should fly south in the winter, fish don't have any idea why the water in one direction tastes better than the wtter in another direction. Not taught to do so, boys will learn to masturbate on their own, without any idea of what they are doing.

If you want to go revisionist and apply the name instinct to built-in reward systems that drive an animal toward a certain behavior, feel free. In the end, the question is a scientific one, and you won't find any serious scientists weighing in on the side of instinct, regardless of how behind the times folk wisdom on the subject, or those who speak of "premises" causing sexual preference may be.

There are inborn tendencies to find certain stimuli more pleasurable than others. There is no evidence of inborn knowledge anywhere.

You're right. They were referring to knowledge.

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

Well Robert, you do know that that trademark is only for use by Serious Objectivists TM such as Harry Binswanger :-).

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Jim

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Jim

Glory be! I copied some text from the website, and there it was: an ® after Miss Rand's name. Not even a TM. Objectivism, however, us not registered. Perhaps it needs an alternate spelling, like Kleenex® instead of Clean-Ex. Obb-Djekti-Vizm®, perhaps?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Jim

Glory be! I copied some text from the website, and there it was: an ® after Miss Rand's name. Not even a TM. Objectivism, however, us not registered. Perhaps it needs an alternate spelling, like Kleenex® instead of Clean-Ex. Obb-Djekti-Vizm®, perhaps?

Well Jonathan you obviously haven't looked at the international affiliates like the Ayn Rand Institute Canada which possesses the coveted TM in its logo.

Jim

[Jonathan David Leavitt]

Jonathan,

I know you were joking about Objectivism®, but if you look really closely at an ARI logo, you'll see that it's the Ayn Rand^TM Institute.

The Estate has actually registered a trademark on Ayn Rand's name.

How it would stand up if challenged in court is anyone's guess.

Robert Campbell

I forgot to mention that authoritative rewrites of Ayn Rand and correct scientific revisionism are the sole province of the Serious Scholars TM of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Jim

Glory be! I copied some text from the website, and there it was: an ® after Miss Rand's name. Not even a TM. Objectivism, however, us not registered. Perhaps it needs an alternate spelling, like Kleenex® instead of Clean-Ex. Obb-Djekti-Vizm®, perhaps?

Well Jonathan you obviously haven't looked at the international affiliates like the Ayn Rand Institute Canada which possesses the coveted TM in its logo.

Jim

Is it the square with the fanned lines that is trademarked (symbolic, perhaps, of Ayn Rand fans?) Or is it AR's name itself? Makes me want to register "A is A" just in case it ever catches on with the whim-worshiping hippie set. Think of the royalties! Get it now while it's cheap!

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jonathan David Leavitt

[bmacwilliam]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

No, both you and Reidy are not correct. I am not talking about child or other kin behaviour and the definition used in this sense is completely sufficient to kill Rand's ideas. I am talking about behaviours that confer a survival disadvantage to the acting individual while providing a survival advantage to the recipient OUTSIDE of kin, and separate to simple reciprocal altruism. This behaviour is inherent and there are good evolutionary/game theory explanations for it.

Essentially man is partially inherently altruistic and the argument that he is duty-bound to be partially altruistic even in the pure Randian sense is rooted in reality - Rand's take on altruism is NOT.

Bob

Edited November 16, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Reidy]

You're talking about a notion that applies to non-human species. Rand wasn't.

[kiaer.ts]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

No, both you and Reidy are not correct. I am not talking about child or other kin behaviour and the definition used in this sense is completely sufficient to kill Rand's ideas. I am talking about behaviours that confer a survival disadvantage to the acting individual while providing a survival advantage to the recipient OUTSIDE of kin, and separate to simple reciprocal altruism. This behaviour is inherent and there are good evolutionary/game theory explanations for it.

Essentially man is partially inherently altruistic and the argument that he is duty-bound to be partially altruistic even in the pure Randian sense is rooted in reality - Rand's take on altruism is NOT.

Bob

What is sloppily described as altruistic behavior in biology has nothing to do with it in ethics. Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox. Altruism is the rabbit leaping into the fox's jaws because the fox is hungry.

As volitional beings we are free to disregard nature's plans for us, and use condoms, invent nutrasweet, or commit suicide. That nature provides us with certain dispositions doesn't oblige us to follow them. I do think that most people will be more happy if they do follow what has been programmed into them as evolutionarily successful. But we are not salmon. We have the ability to disregard nature, and no obligation to take her desires into account any more than she cares for our personal happiness.

[anthony]

What is sloppily described as altruistic behavior in biology has nothing to do with it in ethics. Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox. Altruism is the rabbit leaping into the fox's jaws because the fox is hungry.

As volitional beings we are free to disregard nature's plans for us, and use condoms, invent nutrasweet, or commit suicide. That nature provides us with certain dispositions doesn't oblige us to follow them. I do think that most people will be more happy if they do follow what has been programmed into them as evolutionarily successful. But we are not salmon. We have the ability to disregard nature, and no obligation to take her desires into account any more than she cares for our personal happiness.

Well said.

Though I'm not so sure about the 'more happy' part. To the individual, Nature is callously indifferent in her evolutionary zeal.

Far more preferable to be commanding, than obeying, Mother Nature.

If we did nothing but obey our genes, we'd never leave the tribe, we would be enslaved by our stronger brothers, we would have dozens of wives and untold children, and probably still worship the sun, or some invented deity.

All a human would be is a short-lived gene transmitter...

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

I majored in biology in college, and evolution, IMO, is the cornerstone of that science. Rand's assertion than man has no instincts is poppycock. However, I believe that she used the term in a different context than a biologist would.

What I find rather fascinating, quite honestly, is why this problem gets all but glossed over. In my opinion, this is not a minor problem but rather a deal-breaker of the highest order. Although it's not just the instinct problem I speak of, but the whole evolution "problem".

In fairness to Rand, while she should have known (and probably did) that her instinct assertions were "poppycock", newer evolutionary ideas (which she couldn't have known) nevertheless essentially obliterate the entire foundation of the philosophy. More recent (and some older) evolutionary science has uncovered inherent altruism in humans and other animals (confering a survival advantage to another person at a survival disadvantage to oneself) and differences in definitions are insufficient to overcome the problem. Humans, "by design" if you will, are inherently partially altruistic. "Qua Man" is not at all what she says it is (which was always a problem in itself anyway). EVERYTHING changes when a more scientific view of man is used as a foundation

Precious little of her ideas remain standing.

While I have more or less lost interest in the "Philosopy" I am certainly curious why others (especially science-focused people) continue to find value in spite of this???

Bob

IMO instinctual altruism as described by biologists and philosophical altruism as described by Comte and Rand are completely different, but they share the same word. Example: if a human mother tries to save her baby from a wild beast at risk to her own life, she is more likely acting on the basis of instinct than an ethical desire to sacrifice herself.

It seems to me the general public considers altruism to be a term for "being nice," which is why some folks automatically dismiss Ayn Rand once they hear the she opposed altruism.

No, both you and Reidy are not correct. I am not talking about child or other kin behaviour and the definition used in this sense is completely sufficient to kill Rand's ideas. I am talking about behaviours that confer a survival disadvantage to the acting individual while providing a survival advantage to the recipient OUTSIDE of kin, and separate to simple reciprocal altruism. This behaviour is inherent and there are good evolutionary/game theory explanations for it.

Essentially man is partially inherently altruistic and the argument that he is duty-bound to be partially altruistic even in the pure Randian sense is rooted in reality - Rand's take on altruism is NOT.

Bob

What is sloppily described as altruistic behavior in biology has nothing to do with it in ethics. Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox. Altruism is the rabbit leaping into the fox's jaws because the fox is hungry.

As volitional beings we are free to disregard nature's plans for us, and use condoms, invent nutrasweet, or commit suicide. That nature provides us with certain dispositions doesn't oblige us to follow them. I do think that most people will be more happy if they do follow what has been programmed into them as evolutionarily successful. But we are not salmon. We have the ability to disregard nature, and no obligation to take her desires into account any more than she cares for our personal happiness.

"Altruism is not the mother rabbit dying to save its kits from the fox."

No it's not. That's not the definition I refer to - at all. Might want to read it again.

Non reciprical, non kin-based altruism (partial dedication to the generalized service of others) is hardwired in humans. This is evidence-based, not fantasy based.

"We have the ability to disregard nature"

Sure we do, and nowhere have "we" disregarded "nature" more thoroughly than Rand's description of man's "nature". That's the problem.

Bob