In comparing Rand's view of human nature with what we find in the study of actual human beings, the astute observer can hardly fail to notice the degree to which Rand has stripped away everything she found annoying in man. In distinguishing all those elements that separated man from the animals, Rand, in effect, implicitly suggests that man is not essentially an animal. His animalistic characteristics are mere accidents. Man's essence is his "reason" and his volition. These elements supercede the natural or animalistic characteristics. Man has no "instincts" or innate predispositions, only such acquired dispositions as he imbibes from the people around him or his own thinking. Although it is unlikely that Rand would have ever (à la William Jennings Bryan) explicitly denied that man was a mammal, her philosophy, at times, seems to blissfully evade this palpable fact. Indeed, in some ways, this evasion is worse than an outright denial. Bryan, because of his belief in the myth of original sin, could at least be brought to recognize those actual characteristics which human beings share with animals. Rand, on the other hand, saw such characteristics (provided they were not merely physical) as defects acquired through evasion and lack of focus, rather than intregal aspects of a functioning animal.
We see this played out in the Objectivist view of jealousy, which is generally dismissive. Indeed, according to James Valliant, "Female jealousy, in the traditional sense, was alien to Rand." Valliant's view is entirely consisted with the Randian orthodoxy. Emotions can be entirely "rational," as long as the value premises behind the emotions are "rational." Of course, it would be the most dreadful heresy to suggest that Rand herself ever experienced an irrational emotion. In all of this, what is conspicuously missing is any sense of emotions as cues or incentives for behavior necessary for the propagation of the species; that, in other words, emotions exist, not to help create Rand's ideal men or provide incentives for enlightened self-interest, but to assist naturalistic goals which, in their absence, would lead to the extinction of the species. On naturalistic premises, the existence of the human species is not, nor could it ever be, the product of a rational decision, since prior to the existence of human beings, no rational thought existed. Therefore, if one wishes to be a naturalist (and this appears to be the case with Rand and her followers), one must accept those facts which are logically connected to the naturalist view.
Now under the naturalist view, jealousy is a very important emotion, necessary in the development and propagation of the species. As David Desteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo explain:
It's true that many people think of jealousy as a character flaw. But if we didn't feel jealous, we wouldn't have the kinds of stable relationships necessary to adequately protect and care for our offspring. It may not be a pleasant emotion, but sometimes it is a quite useful one, at least when experienced in mild doses. It can alert us to signs that our partner is being unfaithful or that someone is trying to steal him from us. It can also signal to our partners that we want to be in the relationship for the long term (otherwise it wouldn't be worth putting up a fight), and signal to us when they feel the same. [Out of Character, 90]
Regarding emotions as mere value premises, either accepted by default or chosen by a focused mind, renders it impossible to understand the natural and biological function of emotions within the human organism. Emotions are somatic markers or cues for predipositions and cognitive evalutions which promote the maintenance and continuance of the species. In their absence, we would no longer exist. While Rand might have been able to recognize the importance for emotions to survival, her inability to fully appreciate the mammalian side of human nature rendered her incapable of understanding the role of emotions in furthering the reproduction of the species.
You're actually committing the same mistake Rand did, only in the opposite direction.
ReplyDeleteShe wanted to elide the word "animal" out of the phrase "rational animal"; you want to elide the work "rational".
And of the two alternatives, it was Rand that made the less serious mistake.
You are writing as if humans have no choice other than to be jealous, and as if we have no choice other than to do what our natural urges impel us to do, and that our only purpose is to keep the species going.
But that's been false since the first pre-Adamite did something that was not instinctive.
Lots of people are jealous, but the fact is that they could have chosen not to be: usually they simply fall into the instinctive emotion without thinking, but that does not mean it was inevitable.
Rand probably realized that 99 percent of humanity, and possibly more than that, didn't meet her standards, and if she ascribed those negative character traits to acculturation and not instinct or innateness, that's a small mistake in the overall picture. The real point is that she undstood you don't have to be jealous: you can control your emotions--and then of course when it came time for her to act on her own philosophy, she failed miserably. But her failure does not mean the idea is flawed; in fact it's proven to be a very good idea, as any look at human spirituality will show you.
She wanted to elide the word "animal" out of the phrase "rational animal"; you want to elide the [word] "rational".
ReplyDeleteI can't say if this is what Greg wants, seeing as I can't peer into his soul, but I don't think that's what he's doing at all. He's not eliding or denying that man is capable of reason and rationality, just that emotions precede rational thought and that the empirical evidence suggests that the process of evolution has predisposed us toward certain emotions, such as jealousy.
Lots of people are jealous, but the fact is that they could have chosen not to be: usually they simply fall into the instinctive emotion without thinking, but that does not mean it was inevitable.
I would submit that nobody chooses to be jealous (or chooses to feel any emotion). You see your sweetie smooching on someone else and you feel jealous instantly, without thought. Whether and how you act on your jealousy is where reason ight come into play, depending on the individual.
Which is to say, I actually agree with you re: controlling emotions, but that phrasing "controlling emotion" presupposes that having them is involuntary*.
*Obligatory pop-culture reference: Even Star Trek's Vulcans had emotions. In fact, the whole reason they developed their mental hygiene of "pure logic" was because they felt their emotions so strongly, so powerfully that without absolute repressive control they would've driven themselves to extinction.
Kishnevi,
ReplyDeleteClaims like yours about the rational element of human nature being ignored by people who mention or emphasize our animal heritage are unfortunately common amongst intellectuals.
The limits of volition and the questions about how it operates are good questions, but like all empirical questions, should be answered on the basis of the broad scientific and/or statistical evidence, and not by philosophically cherry picking the evidence one likes and ignoring the evidence one dislikes.
One question people who emphasize rationality as the constrained solution to all human vice never honestly answer is how to account for the disparities in talents across the human race. Admitting that even if one's vision is great, that only a few people can realistically live up to it gives away part of the shell game, which is really to defend a value system where you and your values are at the apex and others are below.
"The limits of volition and the questions about how it operates are good questions, but like all empirical questions, should be answered on the basis of the broad scientific and/or statistical evidence, and not by philosophically cherry picking the evidence one likes and ignoring the evidence one dislikes."
ReplyDeleteYou've just proved my point for me. Treating volition as something to studied as an empirical question means reducing humans to the level of animals, because volition is not something that is empirical, not something that can be analyzed through statistics, unless you assume it is merely the volition of animals and not humans.
Humans are individuals, and therefore beyond the application of statistics, which are at best indicators of trends when applied to humans. Empirical methods like yours lead to results that are either absurd or ignore everything in humans that can not be measured, and that is quite a lot.
And you mistake me for saying that rationality is the answer--I was referring to something greater, and that is spirituality. It may be beyond the ability of most people to paint or sculpt a masterpiece, but it is within the reach of everyone, no matter what their levels of education, natural talent, or intelligence may be, to root jealousy out of themselves.
"But it is within the reach of everyone, no matter what their levels of education, natural talent, or intelligence may be, to root jealousy out of themselves."
ReplyDeleteUnless you can come up with some kind of credible evidence for this claim, it would seem much more rational to assume that no one is able to "root jealousy out" any more than someone is able to choose their sexual orientation or which color happens to please their eye more.
One may mitigate the effects of such feelings, or even delude themselves into thinking they've eliminated them entirely, but I've heard no method short of brain injury that can be proven to actually remove any feeling.
If that were possible, then it would be done to a far greater extent than modern existence tends to indicate. If you can "root out" any negative feeling, then why would anyone ever feel sad or angry?
Kishnevi,
ReplyDeleteJust about every successful business in the world today uses empirical analysis in its marketing and business decisions. I don't know whether you are familiar with how research into things like perception and decision-making influences how goods are placed in stores, one of numerous examples, but your exposition or volition as being beyond empirical analysis is willfully ignorant or naive. As with all experimental questions, you don't determine with finality how good the results will be before seeing the results of the analysis. For people familiar with the data from behavioral genetics etc., you would come off as incredibly parochial. But you have the right to your view as arguments do not determine facts.
One may mitigate the effects of such feelings, or even delude themselves into thinking they've eliminated them entirely, but I've heard no method short of brain injury that can be proven to actually remove any feeling.
ReplyDeleteIf that were possible, then it would be done to a far greater extent than modern existence tends to indicate. If you can "root out" any negative feeling, then why would anyone ever feel sad or angry?
That betrays such a level of ignorance that I'm a bit open mouthed. Even Ayn Rand at her most absurd never said anything as absurd as that.
In answer to your question--that's because plenty of people like to hate and like the negative emotions. And most of the rest don't know how to do it.
But the way to do it has been known and practiced for a good long time, in almost every culture; sometimes they call it prayer, and sometimes they call it meditation or similar terms; sometimes they like it to a personalized god and sometimes they don't. Heck, even just following Rand's preachings about how to think for yourself and be fully aware and rational in your thinking could do it, as long as you don't do it the way she practiced it, and substitute rationalization for reasoning.
As with all experimental questions, you don't determine with finality how good the results will be before seeing the results of the analysis. For people familiar with the data from behavioral genetics etc., you would come off as incredibly parochial.
If the method is flawed, the results are flawed. Empirical studies show what people tend to do, but they can never predict what any individual will actually do. If your contention is correct, then there is no volition in the sense that most people use it--meaning the ability to freely choose.
And, at any rate, empirical methods can only succeed if you concentrate on the animal aspect of man. So your insistence on their validity proves my original point--that as far as you are concerned, humans are animals, and the rational element in their makeup is not substantial. Apparently it never occurred to you that it is the folks who practice behavioral genetics who are parochial, and not the other way around?
"That betrays such a level of ignorance that I'm a bit open mouthed. Even Ayn Rand at her most absurd never said anything as absurd as that."
ReplyDeleteAh yes. The "my argument is so obviously true that only a fool would claim otherwise, and also let me express my utter shock and scorn that you dare to question it" style of debate.
Prayer, meditation, whatever you want to call it, one still is not removing any emotion, only trying to clamp down on it. It's trained repression, is all. You don't have to go far to find testimonials from people who thought they had "cured" some "mental problem" in such ways only to realize years later they'd simply bottled it up inside to fester.
Which is not to bag on all types of spirituality - simply to have a more realistic expectation of what is possible, and not accept a wild claim of being able to completely erase an emotion from the mind on the basis of you simply asserting that it is so.
In other words: prove it.
Kishnevi:
ReplyDelete"If the method is flawed, the results are flawed. Empirical studies show what people tend to do, but they can never predict what any individual will actually do. If your contention is correct, then there is no volition in the sense that most people use it--meaning the ability to freely choose. "
Empirical studies often predict what people actually do - it all depends on how high you set standards for accuracy. There are instances where exact behaviour is predicted and others where behavior in a certain range is. There are also cases where behavior observed is not what was predicted by speculation.
Volition is a complicated subject and I honestly do not understand your distinction between animal volition and human volition. Spinoza's view of volition is quite compatible with mine and I doubt he equated men with animals. Moreover, many marketers believe in free will. They just realize that what they do works. That is the empirical way - action speak louder than words.
What is also not clear is whether you consider yourself an exemplar of the virtues you preach. So far, I find that herd to believe, but maybe you really think that you are evidence that vice can be eradicated. The truth is that contexts can be created, not too far fetched in nature, where every vice may become a virtue. Away Greg pointed out, jealousy is just as much a protector of social bonds (is it not the reason why we hate infidelity) as a vice.
Empirical methods have been applied to the study of transcendental meditation and prayer. Such literature influenced my view of meditation and encouraged me to become a practitioner. If that makes me parochial, so be it. In my view, your problem, like Rand, is that you do not understand your limitations and are quick to condemn what you do not really understand.
Treating volition as something to studied as an empirical question means reducing humans to the level of animals, because volition is not something that is empirical, not something that can be analyzed through statistics, unless you assume it is merely the volition of animals and not humans.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so down on animals, kishnevi? Humans are animals too! Rational animals; social animals; tool-using animals; language-using animals, and with the possible exception of that last item, depending on how one defines language, none of those qualities are unique to humans. Cephalopods, cetaceans, our fellow primates, and even some birds such as crows and ravens demonstrate fairly impressive communication and reasoning abilities, so I don't know why you feel the need to draw a magic line between "animal volition" and "human volition." Is it pride? Prejudice?
Will try to take this in order
ReplyDelete1)CW. If you had any familiarity with the history of religion, either Western or Eastern, you would know there are numerous cases of people who have succeeded in eradicating negative emotions like jealousy--not suppressing it, but eradicating it root and branch. The process is simple to describe, but difficult to do--but not impossible. Negative emotions are a byproduct of the ego. Destroy the ego and the negative emotions that go with it by comprehending its illusory nature experientally and not merely intellectually, and then living that understanding out in your daily life constantly. You will, in the specific context of jealousy, understand that there is no ego which can be said to possess something of "its" own, and therefore nothing to be jealous about, and that there is no fundamental distinctin between you and the person of whom you might otherwise be jealous, so that he/she possess that something no more and no less than you do.
(I don't claim to have attained that state, but I try.)
2)Laj--you treat humans as if they are animals who are self aware. I treat them as individuals who constantly make moral choices. If empirical studies can predict exactly what an individual can do (which, if I understand what your wrote, you don't think they do), then they are of relevance to this discussion. Otherwise they are of relevance only if you believe the element of free moral choice is not really important. Free moral choice may not be important to most retail enterprises (except when considering specific products, like clothes made with child labor, etc.), but it is the heart of any philosophical discussion, because moral choice is the vital difference between humans and animals (other animals, as you would say, but I do not).
And, Rey, it is that element of moral choice which is too important to be obscured by thinking of humans as merely another sort of animal.
"If you had any familiarity with the history of religion, either Western or Eastern, you would know there are numerous cases of people who have succeeded in eradicating negative emotions like jealousy--not suppressing it, but eradicating it root and branch."
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar enough with the history of religion to know that this is what is claimed, but I remain highly skeptical that such has ever been honestly and provably achieved.
And in the end it's a rationalization like any other - it's just a matter of which arbitrary thing one wishes to believe and use to impose an artificial structure over their own unfettered emotions.
"You are writing as if humans have no choice other than to be jealous, and as if we have no choice other than to do what our natural urges impel us to do, and that our only purpose is to keep the species going."
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe that most people have no choice about feeling jealous, I can't see where I have written, or even implied, that we have no choice but to do what our natural urges impel us to do, or that our only purpose is to keep the species going. What I have said is that these natural urges provide an incentive for behavior conducive to reproduction. I have no where stated that this incentive is mandatory or that everyone can be expected to follow it.
In discussing issues of human nature, natural inclinations, and volition, some people get overly caught up in exceptional behavior, as if the fact that a few individuals act against tendencies means that most people could act against them. But it's not what people can or should do that counts; it is what they actually do. And while it may be true that a few sages have, through immense self-discipline, conquered most of their natural inclinations, that is entirely irrelevant in making educated guesses as to how most people are likely to behave. If the social reformer creates a utopia on the premise that individuals can conquer their jealousy, he will almost certainly fail. Most people cannot, nor will they ever, be able to control the emotions they feel; the most can they can hope to do is to manage such emotions as they do feel with wisdom and forbearance so as to avoid behavior which is inimical to themselves and to society at large.
Kishnevi, nobody here is arguing that humans don't or can't make moral choices, nor that emotions just as jealousy can have negative consequences. Rather, folks are arguing that (a) jealousy is an evolved aspect of human nature and (b) not necessarily immoral to merely feel.
ReplyDelete(And again with the "mere animals." There's nothing "mere" about animals. We. Are. Animals. And like any animal, we have adaptations that differ in kind and degree from other animals. This dichotomy you create between Moral Humans and Instinctive Animals serves no purpose other than to deny that we too have instincts, those instincts are evolved (meaning that they serve a purpose), and that they can't be "rooted out." At most they can be repressed or diverted.)
CW--Congratulations. I always took Rand's caricature of modern philosphers to be just that. But I find (as is made explicit by your last paragraph) that you're a living walking talking example. Such people exist! Wonders will never cease...There is nothing else I can answer to your cynicism except to say that you are woefully, pitifully wrong, and if you look around you in daily life, you'll find people who have done exactly what you don't think can be done.
ReplyDeleteMr. Nyquist and Rey--you have done nothing else except replace philosophy and psychology with field anthropology and the dubious results of evolutionary psychology--your interest is not in humans but in the human species. VW blinds himself intentionally. You, unintentionally, are achieving the same result.
Kishnevi, you're right about one thing: You do indeed have some work to do in transcending petty emotions.
ReplyDelete"There is nothing else I can answer to your cynicism except to say that you are woefully, pitifully wrong, and if you look around you in daily life, you'll find people who have done exactly what you don't think can be done."
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't live in my area.
"Nothing else I can answer"? What do you mean "else"? There's been no answer, only assertion, and then repeated assertion. Essentially, saying "People can remove emotions entirely! As evidence, I offer the statement that people can remove emotions entirely!"
Garnished with smug, of course.
"...you have done nothing else except replace philosophy and psychology with field anthropology and the dubious results of evolutionary psychology..."
ReplyDeleteWhose philosophy? What brand of psychology? And on what empirical basis do they rest? And anyway, I'm not replacing anything with anything. Just looking around and learning. Testing What-I-Think-I-Know against What-Seems-To-Be. And testing that. And testing that. And...
"Mr. Nyquist and Rey ... your interest is not in humans but in the human species."
Holy non sequitur, Batman! And speaking of Batman, get a clue. You've never met me before and don't know me or my interests, large or small. I may have criticized your ideas, but not you as a person. If my comments about animals felt like an attack on you, then I am sorry. I only wanted to express the unpersuasiveness of your humans vs. animals rhetoric as I do not accept the premise that humans are some sort of superior life-form.
you have done nothing else except replace philosophy and psychology with field anthropology and the dubious results of evolutionary psychology
ReplyDeleteThis involves some confusion about evolutionary psychology which needs to be cleared up. There are, broadly speaking, three parts to evolutionary psychology: (1) the scientific study of human behavior; (2) the scientific study of the relation of genetics to behavior; and (3) the attempt to speculatively explain how genetic-based predispositions arose during the course of evolution. Now because the third part is speculative (although, in the light of a large body of knowledge, eminently plausible), the attempt is made by those with personal agendas to deny all of evolutionary psycholgy (including the scientifically sound parts 1 and 2) on the basis of part 3. But none of my contentions about human nature depend on the truth of part 3, but only on parts 1 and 2, which are not speculative, but based on a large body of research and evidence. Furthermore, if Mr. Kishnevi had been more attentive to the text of my post, he might have noticed that I write such things as "if one wishes to be a naturalist" and "on naturalist premises." In other words, such my naturalism is not of the dogmatic or positivistic variety, but is provisional and hypothetical. I merely accept that part of naturalism that is based on science, because the last 300 years has demonstrated in spades that science is the most reliable type of knowledge at our disposal.
Much like the "positive thinking" gurus, people like kishnevi display an emotional attachment to one aspect of reality while completely rejecting another.
ReplyDeleteBecause someone points out that man is an animal and has a nature (the latter being harmonious with the Objectivist axiom of identity), kishnevi jumped to the conclusion that Greg must therefore be only concerned with "man as an animal" and not with "man as rational being."
It is the exact same reaction I observe when I talk about human suffering, and people jump immediately to the conclusion that I am a pessimist who should kill himself. The fact that one acknowledges suffering does not mean that one cannot also acknowledge pleasure.
Greg quoted James Valliant:
ReplyDelete"Female jealousy, in the traditional sense, was alien to Rand."
Typical mealy mouthed cult-speak from Valliant. What, pray tell, sense does female jealousy have *other than than the "traditional sense"? Does he perhaps mean Rand was prone to female jealousy in a modern sense? What? Of course, what Valliant is really trying to say is that Rand, as the greatest rational being of all time, transcends mere emotions that might trouble lesser beings. But because he can't quite bring himself to say this out loud, cult-speak must be deployed instead.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThis is like Valliant's and Peikoff's discussion of Rand's anger.
It looks like anger to you and me, but Rand's just a passionate valuer outraged at the subjectivism and irrationality in the world.
-Neil