tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post664055790271292634..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand & Human Nature 7Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25584090551977597082011-09-23T01:39:16.031-07:002011-09-23T01:39:16.031-07:00Yes, I am aware of the Selfish Gene metaphor- it&#...Yes, I am aware of the Selfish Gene metaphor- it's a metaphor, at best. Taken literally, it's just not scientific.<br /><br /><br />"Manslaughter, the unintentional killing of a person through negligence, first degree murder, and second degree murder are all distinguished by the degree of free will assumed to be behind the act."<br /><br />We were talking about free will as in "the brain is made of magic," not free will as in "no one is holding a gun to my head." Now you're equivocating.<br /><br />For the sake of this discussion, let's call the first "volition" and the second "freedom of action."<br /><br />Evaluating the conditions of a crime requires us to look at the freedom of action of the individual at that point in time. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with volition.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83824389369800258432011-09-23T01:31:32.380-07:002011-09-23T01:31:32.380-07:00An assumption of free will is necessary, and even ...An assumption of free will is necessary, and even institutionalized at least in Anglo-American law (i have no idea what the law is like where you live). Manslaughter, the unintentional killing of a person through negligence, first degree murder, and second degree murder are all distinguished by the degree of free will assumed to be behind the act.<br /><br />As far as evolution goes, yes I agree it's an unguided process, but that doesn't mean life is. Life is guided by genes. Richard Dawkins '"The Selfish Gene" is a great explanation of this particular view.Govinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41982608442157524772011-09-23T01:15:36.622-07:002011-09-23T01:15:36.622-07:00It seems like you didn't read what I wrote; I ...It seems like you didn't read what I wrote; I already answered the point about moral responsibility. Do you object to what I said, and if so, why?Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71992921104847504032011-09-23T01:11:51.151-07:002011-09-23T01:11:51.151-07:00As far as free will goes, my point is that we all ...As far as free will goes, my point is that we all have to believe and act as if we have it, even if intellectually we might know that it doesn't exist. If a car dealer sells you a bad car, I think it's highly unlikely that you would respond by saying "oh he can't be held responsible for that, he had a bad childhood" (for social constructionists), or "oh he can't be held responsible for that his genetic background means he can't help it" (for genetic determinists).Govinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8194851621124087912011-09-23T01:04:13.220-07:002011-09-23T01:04:13.220-07:00I didn't mean to endorse natalism at all.
The...I didn't mean to endorse natalism at all.<br /><br />The point I'm making here (and that was first popularized in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene in the 70's) is that in a strictly Darwinian biological sense, you can know with great certainty that the function of living things is to propagate their genes. It does not mean at all that evolution is a guided or intelligent process nor does it refer to "purpose" as a moral or philosophical purpose or a conscious mission. Rand got it completely wrong when she claimed the purpose of living things is to sustain their own individual lives. In a gene centered, rather than an individual organism or group centered view of evolution, altruism, including killing yourself for the sake of others, is entirely rational and desirable (not necessarily "good" in a moral sense) as long as its for genetically close relatives like offspring, or for reproduction. Thus male arthropods like mantises and spiders will readily mate with females who kill and eat them, because their life's purpose is reproduction, not continued existence.<br /><br />Knowing the purpose of life in terms of natural selection still doesn't make it any less pointless in a philosophical sense. Natural selection doesn't give you any moral tips about what is philosophically "good." The whole enterprise of trying to derive morality from natural facts is IMO doomed to failure even when your natural facts are, unlike Rand's, actually correct.<br /><br />This is a link to an article on Richard Dawkins that explains <br />http://www.math.kth.se/~gunnarj/AAPORTFn/EVO/evo011114.htmlGovinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42860073308987005802011-09-22T04:25:38.519-07:002011-09-22T04:25:38.519-07:00"Free will may or may not exist,"
It do..."Free will may or may not exist,"<br /><br />It doesn't exist.<br /><br />"but it's kind of a necessary assumption to have if you want to do things like punish someone who commits a crime."<br /><br />Well, it's true that you can't justify punishment as a social ideal anyway, regardless of your position on free will. So your example is very badly chosen. But we need to do something about real crimes, yes. If a machine in a factory is malfunctioning and may end up killing people, would you not try to turn the machine off? If so, then why do you think free will is necessary to explain this concept?<br /><br />"That would be hard to do if you tried to deduce a morality based on the observable fact that all living things are temporary containers for genes whose main purpose is not to continue their own life, but to move those genes on to other temporary containers"<br /><br />Sorry, but no... these are not "observable facts." Evolution is an unintelligent, unguided process, and it does not confer purpose on anything. And natalism is, to be kind about it, complete bullshit on any ethical or factual level.Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11371009501402048892011-09-22T03:46:12.609-07:002011-09-22T03:46:12.609-07:00I did say it wouldn't be a philosophy you woul...I did say it wouldn't be a philosophy you would want to follow, or organize a society on. Free will may or may not exist, but it's kind of a necessary assumption to have if you want to do things like punish someone who commits a crime. That would be hard to do if you tried to deduce a morality based on the observable fact that all living things are temporary containers for genes whose main purpose is not to continue their own life, but to move those genes on to other temporary containers, and if possible, the more containers the better.<br /><br />I think the question of nature or nurture can really be resolved for good when we can tinker with our programming enough to become post-Darwinian, to for example, love who we choose regardless of what our oxytocin levels are, or get rid of emotions like jealousy.Govinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47560005190145509252011-09-21T11:53:06.234-07:002011-09-21T11:53:06.234-07:00So where's your free will then? Where does it ...So where's your free will then? Where does it hide behind all these automatic processes? Is it in quantum physics? Is it in some puff of soul?Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55485402725371469532011-09-21T09:48:23.606-07:002011-09-21T09:48:23.606-07:00Free will doesn't mean I can control my stomac...Free will doesn't mean I can control my stomach's secretion of pepsin, or my eye's dilation response to light, or any of hundreds (thousands?) of other autonomic processes. As Govi said in the first comment, current research shows that part of what we call "falling in love" is also autonomic, caused by chemical cues. You can't help feeling attracted to (or repulsed by) someone when your body finds them chemically (in)compatible, although your mind can choose to override this judgment.Kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28739522770179534842011-09-20T01:57:42.244-07:002011-09-20T01:57:42.244-07:00You're forgetting about Ayn Rand's inalien...You're forgetting about Ayn Rand's inalienable belief in free will (the brain is made out of magic!!!).Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41635346497652892292011-09-13T21:40:00.525-07:002011-09-13T21:40:00.525-07:00I wonder what would result if one were to really r...I wonder what would result if one were to really rigorously insist on objectivist ethics etc. from what actually is: natural selection, and not what one wishes for. I don't think it would be anything anyone would want to consciously follow. Individualism would have to go to the trash bin, as individuals in natural selection are just temporary and disposable containers for genes, and the whole notion of a self is nothing more than an occasionally useful epiphenomenon. Romantic love likewise has got to go as epiphonemenal to the real thing, mate selection, and genetic calculations of the likely success of offspring. Hardly the stuff to inspire hordes of teenagers.Govinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2727965794740758612011-09-13T00:56:52.601-07:002011-09-13T00:56:52.601-07:00Oh, I see. All right. I was hoping for a natalist ...Oh, I see. All right. I was hoping for a natalist argument, but... oh well. :)Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38660947889475787032011-09-12T13:40:25.609-07:002011-09-12T13:40:25.609-07:00As an antinatalist who has just started to read yo...<i>As an antinatalist who has just started to read your blog, I'd be VERY interested to hear your evidence for this statement...</i><br /><br />There's a bit of misplaced literalism here. The phrase "the world must be peopled" is not meant as a moral statement about conscious willing or the desirability of having people in the world (although most people would prefer the world to be peopled in the sense that they would oppose the extermination of mankind). It's a bit of literary license (it's actually a quote from Shakespeare) meant merely to describe the strong instinctive forces that "must" exist in ordre for the human race to persist.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31867876492423340232011-09-12T04:29:41.959-07:002011-09-12T04:29:41.959-07:00"The world must be peopled."
As an anti..."The world must be peopled."<br /><br />As an antinatalist who has just started to read your blog, I'd be VERY interested to hear your evidence for this statement...Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29719226391170152522011-09-11T22:11:43.690-07:002011-09-11T22:11:43.690-07:00(Where "Desire to have children" does no...(Where "Desire to have children" does not include an indirect and unconscious desire, i.e. her quite obvious interest in hot, steamy coitus scenes)Govinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68603604714601387492011-09-11T21:40:42.759-07:002011-09-11T21:40:42.759-07:00Oxytocin levels are also thought to play a major p...Oxytocin levels are also thought to play a major part in romantic love and they can also be temporarily chemically increased. Ayn Rand looks quite a bit like someone with low oxytocin but high testosterone.<br /><br />One odd thing though, if Randism is supposed to follow from the objective facts of nature, why did Ayn Rand, as a DNA based sexually reproductive organism never express a desire to have children, nor any regret at not having children? If you're going to argue that what one ought to do automatically follows from the objective facts of nature, then one would be making a fairly suicidal mistake by not reproducing and denying one's nature as a living thing. The objective facts of life are not about sustaining one's own life, which no matter what you do comes with an expiration date, but are about reproducing.Govinoreply@blogger.com