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


Recommended Posts

Xray proves Ted is correct. Her example is a contradiction, not a stolen concept.

It is a stolen concept leading to a contradiction in argumentation. Applying stolen concepts nearly always has this effect.

Imo "sticky" concept would be a better term. For the speaker did not (figuratively) "steal" the concept. Instead he never mentally abandoned it, despite believing he did.

That's what all the "denying reason by means of reason" issue is about.

Here is a similar passage from The Fountainhead:

Our greatest moments are personal, self-motivated, not to be touched. The things which are sacred or precious to us are the things we withdraw from promiscuous sharing. (My italics.)

Again, Rand presents her personal perspective on things as if it were everyone else's as well. Imo our greatest moments need neither be self-motivated nor 'not to be touched'.

The key issue in discussing Ayn Rand's moral views is: how much did she really know about human nature?

Imo it possible that her psychological make-up was such that she was unable to see certain things. That she could not feel what most of her fellow men had no problem in feeeling, and because she could not feel it, it does not figure in her moral theory.

Let me guess: You read only the snippet quoted out of context by Rollins without reading the entire passage. Right?

No, I read the whole passage. I always check with the original source if I can, and since I have the book, looked it up.

In the same passage, she speaks about attempts by ideologists "to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion" (TF, introduction, p. ix) [i. e. "the religious-altruist ethics"] and substitute "society" for God.

I believe that in a certain way, Rand did substitute "Man" for "God". She even calls Galt a "prime mover" (!). A prime mover who has immense power: he can cause the world to stop functioning and then has the power to make it work again when he decides to go back.

But maybe the desire to 'worship' is deeply engrained in the nature of man? If yes, why?

The simplest explanation: given the fact that humans are group beings living in hiercharchical structures, to look up to some kind of "alpha being", or to an even "greater being" is not really surprising.

We have atheists in our tradition--many of them, and when someone is giving a sermon, or what have you, and says something including a phrase like "all that is sacred," or "all that is Holy," that is not a problem due to its, uh "possible religious origin," something like that. Sacred is sacred. Not to be touched. It is about reverence, which is something that is a higher quality, a cultivated quality.

It interests me why atheists should feel the desire at all to join a church (even if it is not a type of church comparable to traditional churches).

So what drives these atheists? I can imagine it is the desire to find a spiritual home.

So is homo sapiens sapiens also a homo spiritualis? I'm convinced that this is the case.

There are many pathways toward experiencing existence at a more, what. . .elegant, deeper level? I understand and agree with what George is saying about what is sacred. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and when talking about the word "sacred," for the most part bringing up Rand's writing about it would be met with resounding agreement.

Ayn Rand wrote in the foreword of TF: (bolding mine)

"But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists;" (Rand)

This is stating a mere belief as if it were a proven fact. But we cannot know whether a supernatural dimension exists or not.

Although I'm at present leaning, belief-wise, more to the atheist side of the fence, I'm a religious agnostic because we just can't claim to know about the existence (or non-existence) of that which is beyond our mental grasp.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again, Rand presents her personal perspective on things as if it were everyone else's as well. Imo our greatest moments need neither be self-motivated nor 'not to be touched'.

The key issue in discussing Ayn Rand's moral views is: how much did she really know about human nature?

You have switched subjects.

Imo it possible that her psychological make-up was such that she was unable to see certain things. That she could not feel what most of her fellow men had no problem in feeeling, and because she could not feel it, it does not figure in her moral theory.

Yes, this is possible. It is also possible that you have the same problem.

I believe that in a certain way, Rand did substitute "Man" for "God".

And I believe that your opinion in this matter is worthless.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in one scientific basis for empathy that I find fascinating, here is a Wikipedia article: Mirror neuron.

I have become interested in empathic reactions as part of my Internet marketing studies.There is a load of people now putting systems together based on mirror neuron research. For example, Buyology by Martin Lindstrom.

Ethically (in terms of a chosen behavior value), I believe it is a plus to encourage empathy in ourselves as a form of exercising and honing what we already come with. This is also something that is good for our species in terms of both survival and reproduction. And what is good for the species is generally good for the individual member (with some exceptions).

Where this gets screwed up in philosophy is that the altruistic principle implies that we automatically owe the reaction of empathy (and/or the acts deriving from this) to others just because we exist. And what is the reason? From what I have read so far, it almost always boils down to a command from God or "just because."

To use this kind of language, and using human nature as a basis, we owe it to ourselves to strive for realizing our innate potential (when positive, of course). And mirror neurons are innate. This does not mean that we owe that potential--or the striving--to anyone else.

But philosophical altruism says we do. That's really messed up, too.

I believe my thinking on this puts it in just about the most selfish frame possible, even though other people benefit. They benefit is a result of an individual's selfish interest in his own mental/emotional development, not as a debt they are collecting on.

Michael

Interesting discussion. I have long believed that if rights have any "source" (which question I think has some erroneous presumptions; it seems legal-positivistic to me--Rand said morals follow from the choice to live--what is the "source" of the choice to live? does it have a "source"?), it is empathy. Mises said in Human Action:

"There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants."

In my post The Division of Labor as the Source of Grundnorms and Rights, I discuss some interesting ideas of Hoppe and Mises regarding how the division of labor and cooperation give rise to empathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in one scientific basis for empathy that I find fascinating, here is a Wikipedia article: Mirror neuron.

I have become interested in empathic reactions as part of my Internet marketing studies.There is a load of people now putting systems together based on mirror neuron research. For example, Buyology by Martin Lindstrom.

Ethically (in terms of a chosen behavior value), I believe it is a plus to encourage empathy in ourselves as a form of exercising and honing what we already come with. This is also something that is good for our species in terms of both survival and reproduction. And what is good for the species is generally good for the individual member (with some exceptions).

Where this gets screwed up in philosophy is that the altruistic principle implies that we automatically owe the reaction of empathy (and/or the acts deriving from this) to others just because we exist. And what is the reason? From what I have read so far, it almost always boils down to a command from God or "just because."

To use this kind of language, and using human nature as a basis, we owe it to ourselves to strive for realizing our innate potential (when positive, of course). And mirror neurons are innate. This does not mean that we owe that potential--or the striving--to anyone else.

But philosophical altruism says we do. That's really messed up, too.

I believe my thinking on this puts it in just about the most selfish frame possible, even though other people benefit. They benefit is a result of an individual's selfish interest in his own mental/emotional development, not as a debt they are collecting on.

Michael

Interesting discussion. I have long believed that if rights have any "source" (which question I think has some erroneous presumptions; it seems legal-positivistic to me--Rand said morals follow from the choice to live--what is the "source" of the choice to live? does it have a "source"?), it is empathy. Mises said in Human Action:

"There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants."

In my post The Division of Labor as the Source of Grundnorms and Rights, I discuss some interesting ideas of Hoppe and Mises regarding how the division of labor and cooperation give rise to empathy.

That's very interesting although I'm not sure I entirely agree. The reasons why empathy would have developed is indeed because there's a productivity gain is true I think. Productivity gain=survival gain and therefore gene propogation advantage of cooperators. But I think he tries to connect this with the necessity of man realizing the productivity gain (and hence acting cooperatively) and I think this is wrong. Evolution is blind this way. It (empathy) happened - meaning it became a stable trait - because it works (confers gene-propogation advantage), not because we understand it works.

Mises:

"there can emerge between members of society feelings of sympathy and friendship and a sense of belonging together. These feelings are the source of man’s most delightful and most sublime experiences. They are the most precious adornment of life; they lift the animal species man to the heights of a really human existence."

Rand:

"Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. 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."

Mises=correct

Rand=wrong

Michael wrote: "Ethically (in terms of a chosen behavior value), I believe it is a plus to encourage empathy in ourselves"

It seems at least that it follows therefore that if one is NEVER required to be empathetic then this would be an ethical minus (which is my claim in a nutshell).

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Rand presents her personal perspective on things as if it were everyone else's as well. Imo our greatest moments need neither be self-motivated nor 'not to be touched'.

The key issue in discussing Ayn Rand's moral views is: how much did she really know about human nature?

You have switched subjects.

No, I haven't. I'm merely getting to the core of the issue. That Rand could think of our greatest moments only as self-motivated and not to be touched is not surprising, given her idea of man's nature. And her moral views rest on her idea of human nature as well. Therefore to examine whether her premises match reality is crucial.

Rand's premises are easy to test with counterexamples from real life.

Our greatest moments are self-motivated, not to be touched she says.

One of the greatest moment in my life was exactly the contrary: it was the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Neither self-motivation (for I lived in West Germany, so whether the wall was there or not did not affect my life directly) nor 'untouchability' were a factor. Actually I shared this great, unforgettable moment with millions of other human beings on the planet.

So while it is true that there exist self-motivated, great moments as well, our greatest moments can also be motivated by empathy for others.

Imo it possible that her psychological make-up was such that she was unable to see certain things. That she could not feel what most of her fellow men had no problem in feeeling, and because she could not feel it, it does not figure in her moral theory.

Yes, this is possible. It is also possible that you have the same problem.

I could not work successfully in my job with children if I had problems with feeling empathy, George.

I also have experience in working with children who have problems in that field, and have often thought what a shame it was that Ayn Rand's teachers seem to have left the young child alone to deal with it. But then these were different times.

I believe that in a certain way, Rand did substitute "Man" for "God".

And I believe that your opinion in this matter is worthless.

Ghs

Worthless to whom? To you because for some reason you don't like what I'm saying?

BTW, can your essay "Objectivism as a Religion" be accessed via the internet?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now