tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6774639683133333540..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Hoisted from comments: Michael Prescott On Rand's EthicsDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32303231654624867952009-01-11T04:49:00.000-08:002009-01-11T04:49:00.000-08:00HerbSewell said...Life is a process of self-sustai...HerbSewell said...<BR/><I>Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generating process. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>So, can your self live without the sun? <BR/><BR/>Can you self live without water?<BR/><BR/>Does your self generate water?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-69004618527458179982008-12-14T16:18:00.000-08:002008-12-14T16:18:00.000-08:00HerbSewell: "All these objections seem to be comin...HerbSewell: "All these objections seem to be coming from the standpoint that Objectivism is dualistic in nature, praising a rather asceticist view of emotions."<BR/><BR/>Not at all. We all know that Rand's position is: <EM>Enjoy emotions, but don't use them as a "tool" of cognition.</EM> It's this notion that emotions should not be tools of cognition that is being attacked as not being consistent with the predominant views of cognitive scientists. Nor are I we suggesting that emotions "ought" to be tools of cognition. No, the objection is far more fundamental: we're suggesting that emotions <EM>are</EM> tools of cognition, whether we want them to be or not, and that the classical model of a reason destitute of emotion is contray to the facts of reality (as discovered in cognitive science, particularly in the work of Antonio Damasio). Reason and emotion work hand in hand. When people are mislead by emotion it is because they experience "wrong" or inappropriate emotions. But with no emotions at all, no effective thinking would be possible at all.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54596422243295066302008-12-13T14:51:00.000-08:002008-12-13T14:51:00.000-08:00“Indeed. Rand never seemed to be quite sure what s...“Indeed. Rand never seemed to be quite sure what she meant by "reason," offering a variety of definitions and descriptions”. <BR/><BR/>“Robbins, in Without a Prayer, takes Rand to task for placing so much emphasis on a concept so vague: “<BR/><BR/>And not only in her epistemology but her ethics, it has been drawn out into the realm of being a virtue. My thinking is that if deterministic factors affect reasoning ability, how can we be judged ethically on things beyond our control? <BR/><BR/>"Reason is simply a cue word used by all varieties of philosophers. The word reason is a great empty vessel into which all meanings may be poured.<BR/><BR/>"For Hume reason means experience. For Spinoza and Hegel reason means logic. For Aquinas reason means experience plus ratiocination. Rand seems to mean sense experience, introspection, discussion, and logic.”<BR/><BR/>To me reason has multiple applications in epistemology in an external sense but in an internal cognitive sense is simply the ability to comprehend. Aquinas seemed to combine the subjective experience with logical reasoning. Much better than attempting to make virtues out of your subjective experiences. <BR/><BR/>I seem to remember Max Weber splitting reason into two different types, one more structural and scholastic and the other more practical and personal. I don’t have the book, but I will get it. <BR/><BR/>"Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Rand are all philosophers who claimed to be 'champions of reason.'<BR/><BR/>"For Rand reason is a faculty distinct from the senses -- but she also wrote that reason is 'man's only means of perceiving reality' (Philosophy: Who Needs It? p. 75), so reason is the senses.<BR/><BR/>Perceiving means to become aware of through the senses, is reason a sense? I think were in trouble here. So now, senses are virtues? <BR/><BR/>"Rand also said reason is 'the only objective means of communication and understanding among men.' This is yet another definition."<BR/><BR/>She seems to need an application specific modifier here, to express a relation with an adverb, otherwise it does become another definition. <BR/><BR/>I thought maybe it was just Herb, who was making these confusions, but this is from Rand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73811754910416717672008-12-13T10:30:00.000-08:002008-12-13T10:30:00.000-08:00Rand seems to be mixed up again.Indeed. Rand never...<I>Rand seems to be mixed up again.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. Rand never seemed to be quite sure what she meant by "reason," offering a variety of definitions and descriptions. <BR/><BR/>Robbins, in <I>Without a Prayer</I>, takes Rand to task for placing so much emphasis on a concept so vague: <BR/><BR/>"Reason is simply a cue word used by all varieties of philosophers. The word reason is a great empty vessel into which all meanings may be poured.<BR/><BR/>"For Hume reason means experience. For Spinoza and Hegel reason means logic. For Aquinas reason means experience plus ratiocination. Rand seems to mean sense experience, introspection, discussion, and logic.<BR/><BR/>"Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Rand are all philosophers who claimed to be 'champions of reason.'<BR/><BR/>"For Rand reason is a faculty distinct from the senses -- but she also wrote that reason is 'man's only means of perceiving reality' (<I>Philosophy: Who Needs It?</I> p. 75), so reason <I>is</I> the senses.<BR/><BR/>"Rand also said reason is 'the only objective means of communication and understanding among men.' This is yet another definition."<BR/><BR/>(The above is taken from my notes on the book; I'm not sure if it's a direct quote or a paraphrase, and I don't have the book handy to check.)Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44271816707827131712008-12-13T01:09:00.000-08:002008-12-13T01:09:00.000-08:00My point is that it’s [“I think intuition could be...My point is that it’s [“I think intuition could be considered reason also.”] a contradiction of the Objectivist definition of reason, that reason is an ethical virtue and function of volitional cognition.<BR/><BR/>“That is not reason. Rationality ≠ Reason. Reason is the faculty that integrates the material provided by man’s senses into concepts, gaining knowledge of the world through such integration. No where in that description does it say that is has to be volitional in nature. Let met back up a bit. Maybe rationality can be nonvolitional in nature, though at that point it’s really a question of semantics. “<BR/><BR/>Yes, semantics, lets clear up some semantics. Rationality is the state of being agreeable to reason. So primarily reason is the methodology and rationality describes it. If your reasoning, your rational. Therefore, if rationality is a virtue and it is explicitly describing the act of reasoning, ergo, the ability to reason is the fundamental definition. It’s as though Rand did not know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions when she made this stuff up. Reasoning is a sufficient condition to being rational, being rational is a virtue, therefore, reason is a virtue. <BR/><BR/>“Now that I think of it, intuition can be rational”,<BR/><BR/>Intuition is unarticulated thought, as we seem to agree upon. If its not conceptualized, it cannot be reasoned or therefore rational in nature. If intuition was conceptualized, articulated and reckoned with in concert with other abstractions, it would become reason. So attempting to define intuition as reason, defies its own nature. Remember the Law of Identity, A is A. <BR/><BR/>“ As a species, one must take the products of nonvolitional cognition as strictly irrational.”<BR/><BR/>To be more accurate, one must take any cognitions arising from visceral inputs and condition them for rationality, you know, reason, which would be a sufficient condition to determine you as being rational and therefore, virtuous in Rands ethics. <BR/><BR/>“If an emotion is simply based on one’s concepts of reality…”<BR/><BR/>There is no other cause of emotion. They are all based on our own concept of reality, anything else is an impossibility, emotion originates in our own being. <BR/><BR/>“Emotions can only be uncontrollable when one lacks volition,”<BR/><BR/>Tell that to a genocide survivor or rape victim. Trauma and severe emotion are often uncontrollable. Volition or no volition. Some things cannot be “reasoned” through, they cannot be comprehended by the cognitive brain. <BR/> <BR/>“reason is not considered a virtue by the Objectivist doctrine,”<BR/><BR/>Herb, you posted this earlier-<BR/><BR/>“In any case, Rand said that rationality, (the virtue that achieves the value of reason), is the source of all other virtues, but not the only one, in which she names the others in Galt's speech.”<BR/><BR/>As previously noted, I am confident in saying that rationality requires only reasoning, that reasoning is a sufficient condition to being rational. Ergo, reason is a virtue. To reason is to comprehend, this makes you rational. If you know of other requirements to being rational besides reason, due let me know and we could changes reasoning’s status to a necessary condition of being rational. <BR/><BR/>“Rand said that rationality, (the virtue that achieves the value of reason”<BR/><BR/>Rand seems to be mixed up again. Please note that its reason that achieves rationality and not the other way around. Reason is defined as a rational ground or motive, in addition to be being the power of comprehending.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4518745568453438162008-12-12T15:22:00.000-08:002008-12-12T15:22:00.000-08:00“This is correct. Cognitive scientists have discov...“This is correct. Cognitive scientists have discovered that if, due to brain lesions, the ability to experience certain emotions is impaired, reasoning ability becomes seriously compromised.”<BR/> <BR/>I'm not parading dualism. I recognize that a) conscious organisms have both mental attributes and physical attributes, and (b) both kinds of attributes may participate in determining the causal powers of the conscious organism. In all likelihood, the parts of the brain in that situation which controlled emotions also controlled the brain's cognitive function. My point is that one cannot pragmatically nor mystically say that emotions can control reality or must be assumed to logically based on reality. While the intuition that is behind the emotions may be rational in nature, the only rational use for emotions is introspection. One must squarely remember that pleasurable emotions, (or happiness), can only be the purpose of proper actions, not the standard. Emotions themselves say nothing about reality except how it relates your metaphysical values. Everything here about the Objectivist epistemology and its cognitive theory of emotions seems to be said in misunderstanding of the philosophy. All these objections seem to be coming from the standpoint that Objectivism is dualistic in nature, praising a rather asceticist view of emotions. That's not the case and I wish I knew where people received that notion from.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64149308833467014622008-12-12T15:00:00.000-08:002008-12-12T15:00:00.000-08:00“Herb, is it rational that the moon has craters? O...“Herb, is it rational that the moon has craters? Or is it maybe irrational? After all, it has to be either rational or irrational, anything else would violate the law of the excluded middle.”<BR/><BR/>My definition of irrational is anything that is not rational. Because there was no volitional cognitive function, (or at least none that can be identified through any known rational means), it would be irrational.<BR/><BR/>“My point is that it’s a contradiction of the Objectivist definition of reason, that reason is an ethical virtue and function of volitional cognition.”<BR/><BR/>That is not reason. Rationality ≠ Reason. Reason is the faculty that integrates the material provided by man’s senses into concepts, gaining knowledge of the world through such integration. No where in that description does it say that is has to be volitional in nature. Let met back up a bit. Maybe rationality can be nonvolitional in nature, though at that point it’s really a question of semantics. <BR/><BR/>Now that I think of it, intuition can be rational, and so can nonvolitional emotions, but let me make this clear. As a species, one must take the products of nonvolitional cognition as strictly irrational. Only through rugged introspection, one can determine that one’s intuition is naturally very rational, relying on analyzing the situation and then creating an automated response to it. <BR/><BR/>“And what of the “Law of Inappropriate Definition”, har har. Now, for the last time, emotions are not rational or irrational. If we are capable of identifying with them, we can deal with emotions in a rational or irrational way. Ie: whether or not we have cognitive distortions concerning an event and exaggerate negative consequences. Or whether or not we have mystical thinking.” <BR/><BR/>I honestly still don’t see the paradox. I’ve gone through what I’ve said several times, yet do not see what is so contradicting. An emotion is rational if is as some point, volitionally or non-volitionally, backed by some non-contradictory identification of reality. If an emotion is simply based on one’s concepts of reality that have not been proven logically then they are irrational.<BR/><BR/>“Emotions can be uncontrollable---they affect our ability to reason---reason is a “virtue” and as such part of the Objectivist ethical system---people cannot be judged on things beyond their control---therefore the Objectivist system of ethics is incomplete.”<BR/><BR/>Emotions can only be uncontrollable when one lacks volition, reason is not considered a virtue by the Objectivist doctrine, and the study of emotions in terms of cognition rests squarely in epistemology, not ethics. <BR/><BR/>“Not much point in making excuses for her now. If she wasn't competent, why did she try to muddle her way through it?”<BR/><BR/>I’m not making excuses for her. I personally don’t think it’s philosophy’s role to explain the systematic function of emotions. The explanation is discovered through experimentation, in which it’s understanding would go to scienceHerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35776167085402634042008-12-11T18:21:00.000-08:002008-12-11T18:21:00.000-08:00Daniel Barnes,Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate them...Daniel Barnes,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate them.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55999165866182085572008-12-11T16:03:00.000-08:002008-12-11T16:03:00.000-08:00Damien:>I have got to admit I'm envious of ...Damien:<BR/>>I have got to admit I'm envious of you. no one has ever responded so much to anything I wrote.<BR/><BR/>Hi Damien<BR/><BR/>This reminded me I was supposed to get back to you on a few posts myself. But it's all been a bit mad recently. Your comments are usually pretty good.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27416245873628823662008-12-11T15:39:00.000-08:002008-12-11T15:39:00.000-08:00My point exactly Herb, so why would you want draw ...My point exactly Herb, so why would you want draw intuition into the quantifiable and deliberate realm of reasoning? As soon as you are unable to articulate reasoning internally, it becomes intuition. You seem to be contradicting yourself here.<BR/><BR/>“I really don't see the contradiction. I only said that emotions are products of intuition of the subconscious.”<BR/><BR/>Your previous statement:<BR/><BR/>“I think intuition could be considered reason also.”<BR/><BR/>My point is that it’s a contradiction of the Objectivist definition of reason, that reason is an ethical virtue and function of volitional cognition. <BR/><BR/>As I said, intuition is thought you are unable to articulate internally. You don’t seem to disagree with this. <BR/><BR/>From this chain of logic we can see that either you will have to disagree with the definition of intuition provided, introduce some sort of scope shift as you tried to by changing your premise, or accept your contradiction, oh wait, maybe you should check your premise, ha ha. <BR/><BR/>“To say that something is not rational or irrational is against the law of the excluded middle.”<BR/><BR/>And what of the “Law of Inappropriate Definition”, har har. Now, for the last time, emotions are not rational or irrational. If we are capable of identifying with them, we can deal with emotions in a rational or irrational way. Ie: whether or not we have cognitive distortions concerning an event and exaggerate negative consequences. Or whether or not we have mystical thinking. <BR/><BR/>Our ability to cognitively deal with emotions is dependent on how we individually experience emotion. And this is very dependent on our psycho-social development, the particular situation and our biology. Some people are just more stoic than others. But the definition of rational or irrational belongs to cognitions, not emotions. <BR/><BR/>“My point was to say that all emotions that are not at in some way based on volitional cognition are irrational.”<BR/><BR/>Greg Nyquist-<BR/><BR/>“This is correct. Cognitive scientists have discovered that if, due to brain lesions, the ability to experience certain emotions is impaired, reasoning ability becomes seriously compromised.”<BR/><BR/>Herb, here is an emotional issue not based on volitional consciousness, is this irrational?<BR/><BR/>I also suspect that as cognitive science advances more subtle nuances of a deterministic nature that reckon with biology and environment will come to light. Abuse of children, trauma, hereditary issues, etc. So referencing to a mundane daily situation as you have Herb, does not provide an insight beyond the most basic. And seeing as we are dealing with Rand, basic seems to fit the bill. <BR/><BR/>Here is the chain of inferences I have set up:<BR/><BR/>Emotions can be uncontrollable---they affect our ability to reason---reason is a “virtue” and as such part of the Objectivist ethical system---people cannot be judged on things beyond their control---therefore the Objectivist system of ethics is incomplete. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Again, she was a philosopher, not a psychologist. As a philosopher, he only job was to say what role emotions play in our cognition. It is up for the sciences of psychology and biology to explain the nuances and the intricate workings of emotions."<BR/><BR/>Not much point in making excuses for her now. If she wasn't competent, why did she try to muddle her way through it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27067697985665230592008-12-11T11:48:00.000-08:002008-12-11T11:48:00.000-08:00Michael Prescott,I have got to admit I'm envious o...Michael Prescott,<BR/><BR/>I have got to admit I'm envious of you. no one has ever responded so much to anything I wrote. You've started one hell of a conversation.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85569482026294804482008-12-11T11:01:00.000-08:002008-12-11T11:01:00.000-08:00Samuel:>Herb, is it rational that the moon has ...Samuel:<BR/>>Herb, is it rational that the moon has craters? Or is it maybe irrational? After all, it has to be either rational or irrational, anything else would violate the law of the excluded middle.<BR/><BR/>Well said Samuel.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11457152126633282812008-12-11T10:24:00.000-08:002008-12-11T10:24:00.000-08:00Herb, is it rational that the moon has craters? Or...Herb, is it rational that the moon has craters? Or is it maybe irrational? After all, it has to be either rational or irrational, anything else would violate the law of the excluded middle.<BR/><BR/>(protip: you can't apply the law of the excluded middle directly on clauses which has an predicate describing the subject; e.g. emotion is rational/irrational. If you want to know more, ask the bald king of France.)Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06316627214716308007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57650293591904400332008-12-11T08:46:00.000-08:002008-12-11T08:46:00.000-08:00"They identify reality in that they identify what ..."They identify reality in that they identify what is pertinent to us emotionally. Our navigation through reality obviously depends on incorporating this. Even though in a cut and dry sense reality is totally objective, our path through it is not, and through our path we therefore determine our own reality through our actions as we live life. In an emotional sense this is very true, as what I perceive as reality is reality and actions based off this become reality. How can I function any differently?"<BR/><BR/>I know that, but my point is that they, by themselves, can only be used for introspection of the subconscious. They don't state any facts, truths, or references to reality. They are just there subconscious responses, triggered and programmed by one's thoughts and value judgments <BR/><BR/>"I must continue to disagree on this point. Emotions are never irrational or rational because more powerful emotions, those that people cannot reckon with cognitively at times, have no objective standard of measurement, they simply exist. What defines the rationality of a person will be there cognitive response to emotion. We can determine if someone’s emotional response to a situation is normal according to what others experience, but we could never determine it as being rational or irrational because that would presuppose the absolute ability to reckon with emotions cognitively. People can only be judged morally or ethically on things which are in their ability to control. This would contradict the false “axiomatic principle of free-will”."<BR/><BR/>To say that something is not rational or irrational is against the law of the excluded middle. Any emotion that is developed or checked by reason is rational. Any emotion that is not is irrational. Rational and irrational only refer to aspects of volition and cognition. There's nothing wrong with having "gut reactions"<BR/><BR/>"Rand needed to expand her definition to include emotional issues to give justification to feelings that affect our ability to behave in cognitively rational way. Her system seems very limited. Emotions are an aspect of our reality in the same way neurological disorders are. Objectivism does not seem to have explored this sufficiently to say the least. Furthermore, this is my interest in you resolving this paradox concerning the closed yet open prediction incorporating definition of the ethics system you gave throughout your posts. How can it be closed, yet open to new theories whilst having simultaneously guarded against future innovation in such disciplines?"<BR/><BR/>Again, she was a philosopher, not a psychologist. As a philosopher, he only job was to say what role emotions play in our cognition. It is up for the sciences of psychology and biology to explain the nuances and the intricate workings of emotions.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"My point exactly Herb, so why would you want draw intuition into the quantifiable and deliberate realm of reasoning? As soon as you are unable to articulate reasoning internally, it becomes intuition. You seem to be contradicting yourself here."<BR/><BR/>I really don't see the contradiction. I only said that emotions are products of intuition of the subconscious. <BR/><BR/>"Also Herb, can you reconcile this new paradox?"<BR/><BR/>My point was to say that all emotions that are not at in some way based on volitional cognition are irrational. Going back to my example of that buffoon who I had desire to associate with, if I had just felt completely angry without an explanation for the emotion, it would have been irrational. It was because I explained by giving examples that I could justify the emotions. Even then, while somebody could explain an emotion, it doesn't necessarily mean its a result of reason. Let's suppose that there was a reason that I should still converse with this rapscallion, (I may intoxicating him with alcohol to get crucial information). It may still be in my best interest to converse with him and there's a conceptual positive value-judgment towards him, but it still doesn't evade the fact that I'm incredibly annoyed by him and emotionally he registers as a negative value-judgment. If I were to escape his area of influence because I emotionally detest him, it will not be in my best interest to do so.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51605075716065117262008-12-11T08:16:00.000-08:002008-12-11T08:16:00.000-08:00FO,How about a simpler view. Self-esteem, the noti...FO,<BR/><BR/>How about a simpler view. Self-esteem, the notion that one's life is worth living, is one's highest value. Life is a process of <B>self</B>-sustaining and <B>self</B>-generating process. Man must use his reason to know which values are critical for him to achieve or keep for the preservation of his self. Reason is that tool which will allow him to achieve those values. Purpose is that which directs him to what values he will achieve. A conviction that one is capable of achieving values and a conceptual desire to live make up the self-esteem. In order to be consistent in his hierarchy of values, he must evaluate which will lead to the creation or destruction of his self-esteem. The worth of one's life is entirely dependent on how much one wants to live it. If that aspect is lost, one's life has lost the impetus to live.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-76672899740585305032008-12-10T23:28:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:28:00.000-08:00Herb Sewell:"I really don't understand what the co...Herb Sewell:"I really don't understand what the confusion is."<BR/><BR/>The problem is this:<BR/><BR/>-Objectivist: Because there is no value without life, to value something that is against the faculty that permits one to have values is a contradictory value, therefore life must be the ultmate value.<BR/>-Ok, so man ought to direct all his action and all the focus of his mind to ultimately maximizing his life expectancy?<BR/>-No no, that is not what Rand says at all. Oh no, Rand says that man ought to survive according to his nature and this may or may not maximize his life expectancy.<BR/>-Ok, so how do we know whether we survive according to our nature?<BR/>-Man is the rational animal, so if his survival method is in harmony with what is rational, if it is qua man, then it is according to our nature.<BR/>-But reason it not a standard in and of itself, reason is instrumental, it can be used to promote maximazation of life expectany or whatver end man wish to pursue. So how do we determine whether some end is rational, how do we determine the proper focus of our mind?<BR/>-The proper focus of our mind is to use it in order to survive rationally, according to our nature.<BR/>-But that is just circular, for example is FO:s qua man ideal (presented in his excheange with John) qua man? What non circular method is employed to decide between two candidates for qua man? How would you formulate a method that would let a person correctly decide between the two?<BR/>-Well, the method of reason of course. Reason applied to the facts of reality.<BR/>-So what facts of reality should we focus our mind on in order to decide between two candidates for qua man?<BR/>-The facts pertaining to man's true nature of course.<BR/>-And how do we know whether something is in accordance with man's true nature<BR/>-As I said, Rand identified man as the rational animal, man's true nature is that of a rational being. And a rational being must survuve in acordance with reason.<BR/>-You mean, he should use reason to maximize his life expectancy?<BR/>-No, you don't listen. I've already explained that survival in the literal sense isn't what Rand meant at all, Rand said that man ought to survive according to his rational nature, survive qua man, the method proper for a human being.<BR/>-........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-77360368807887810912008-12-10T21:15:00.000-08:002008-12-10T21:15:00.000-08:00Michael: "I am not sure that Rand's own w...Michael: "I am not sure that Rand's own writings would consistently support this point [that Rand's ethics is eudaimonistic]"<BR/><BR/>Rand's writings don't support it, nor does what she said in public. In one of the Q&A to Peikoff's Lectures on Objectivism, Rand explained that she regarded eudaimonism as a mistake, because happiness is an emotion and therefore "subjective."<BR/><BR/>Andrew: "therefore [emotions] do require embracing as valid tools of learning"<BR/><BR/>This is correct. Cognitive scientists have discovered that if, due to brain lesions, the ability to experience certain emotions is impaired, reasoning ability becomes seriously compromised.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4306437152117997762008-12-10T19:12:00.000-08:002008-12-10T19:12:00.000-08:00“That still does not say how emotions can directly...“That still does not say how emotions can directly identify reality. Emotions are still based on some levels of cognition, but are still just the products of the subconscious. Other than knowing how you feel, emotions themselves are not based on volition. Emotions can only be used for introspection, which to be rational, must ultimately lie in some kind of extrospection to understand one's psycho-epistemology and sense of life.” <BR/><BR/>They identify reality in that they identify what is pertinent to us emotionally. Our navigation through reality obviously depends on incorporating this. Even though in a cut and dry sense reality is totally objective, our path through it is not, and through our path we therefore determine our own reality through our actions as we live life. In an emotional sense this is very true, as what I perceive as reality is reality and actions based off this become reality. How can I function any differently? <BR/><BR/>“I disagree. An emotion that is based on intuition as opposed to volitional cognition would be irrational. Just because an emotion is irrational does not mean its wrong. For an integrated human, an emotion which is a product of intuition would most likely be the same emotion that is justified by volitional cognition. A rational emotion would be that which is checked by reason. “<BR/><BR/>I must continue to disagree on this point. Emotions are never irrational or rational because more powerful emotions, those that people cannot reckon with cognitively at times, have no objective standard of measurement, they simply exist. What defines the rationality of a person will be there cognitive response to emotion. We can determine if someone’s emotional response to a situation is normal according to what others experience, but we could never determine it as being rational or irrational because that would presuppose the absolute ability to reckon with emotions cognitively. People can only be judged morally or ethically on things which are in their ability to control. This would contradict the false “axiomatic principle of free-will”. <BR/><BR/><BR/>“If a person has a neurological disorder which makes it difficult to exercise volition or cognition, their metaphysical nature would make them unfit to be considered rational. “<BR/><BR/>Rand needed to expand her definition to include emotional issues to give justification to feelings that affect our ability to behave in cognitively rational way. Her system seems very limited. Emotions are an aspect of our reality in the same way neurological disorders are. Objectivism does not seem to have explored this sufficiently to say the least. Furthermore, this is my interest in you resolving this paradox concerning the closed yet open prediction incorporating definition of the ethics system you gave throughout your posts. How can it be closed, yet open to new theories whilst having simultaneously guarded against future innovation in such disciplines?<BR/><BR/>Also, to attempt to establish intuition as naked reason destroys the nuances associated with intuition and effectively castrates it.<BR/><BR/>“I don't think so. Intuition is one of the things that makes us human, as we would be just robots if every single action and motive would have to be volitional and conscious.”<BR/><BR/>My point exactly Herb, so why would you want draw intuition into the quantifiable and deliberate realm of reasoning? As soon as you are unable to articulate reasoning internally, it becomes intuition. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. <BR/><BR/>Also Herb, can you reconcile this new paradox?<BR/><BR/>"Other than knowing how you feel, emotions themselves are not based on volition."<BR/><BR/>Judging from this statement, I was surprised to see that this following statement is possible.<BR/><BR/>"An emotion that is based on intuition as opposed to volitional cognition would be irrational"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27980230271828254452008-12-10T18:30:00.000-08:002008-12-10T18:30:00.000-08:00"Emotions are not unidirectional "tools" of cognit..."Emotions are not unidirectional "tools" of cognition, they engage in a reciprocal relationship with cognition. So therefore they do require embracing as valid tools of learning, in the same way we incorporate reason as a tool of reckoning with our environment and ourselves. We can then feel our emotions and reason a course of action incorporating other inputs of knowledge. So in that sense, yes, emotions are inputs impacting cognition and are a means to an end, of determining a course of action. So as a sensory input of feeling with a reciprocal relationship with cognition, they are indeed a tool of the whole mind and of cognition. Emotions become a tool of cognition when we incorporate them into our reasoning methodology. Rand would have been better off embracing them as such. A tool is something you use."<BR/><BR/>That still does not say how emotions can directly identify reality. Emotions are still based on some levels of cognition, but are still just the products of the subconscious. Other than knowing how you feel, emotions themselves are not based on volition. Emotions can only be used for introspection, which to be rational, must ultimately lie in some kind of extrospection to understand one's psycho-epistemology and sense of life. <BR/><BR/>"Emotions cannot be considered in themselves to be "irrational or rational" just as people cannot be considered to be "good or bad". In the latter, there is only good or bad behavior, not people. In emotion, our cognitive reactions to visceral sensory inputs would be considered to be irrational or rational. For instance, feeling depressed and then considering the a witch doctor has put you under a spell. An emotion with an accompanying irrational cognition."<BR/><BR/>I disagree. An emotion that is based on intuition as opposed to volitional cognition would be irrational. Just because an emotion is irrational does not mean its wrong. For an integrated human, an emotion which is a product of intuition would most likely be the same emotion that is justified by volitional cognition. A rational emotion would be that which is checked by reason. <BR/><BR/>"So the cognitive responses people have to emotions are dependent on their emotional state. Traumatized individuals who have suffered abuse, even seemingly minor by the standards of others, may have an impossible time "reasoning" through their emotions, their accompanying cognitive functions may also be disturbed and thus their actions."<BR/><BR/>Rand's ethics depend squarely on volition, as that is the root of all rational values. One certainly, (under the Objectivst ethics), wouldn't consider a mongoloid evil because it constantly acts against its life by eating feces. If a person has a neurological disorder which makes it difficult to exercise volition or cognition, their metaphysical nature would make them unfit to be considered rational. <BR/><BR/>"Also, to attempt to establish intuition as naked reason destroys the nuances associated with intuition and effectively castrates it."<BR/><BR/>I don't think so. Intuition is one of the things that makes us human, as we would be just robots if every single action and motive would have to be volitional and conscious.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-75969264594927687732008-12-10T17:49:00.000-08:002008-12-10T17:49:00.000-08:00Herb-"I really don't understand how this cult of m...Herb-<BR/><BR/>"I really don't understand how this cult of misunderstanding of Rand's philosophy came about. Her point wasn't that emotions are not to be used to determine one's actions, but that they are not tools of cognition."<BR/><BR/>Emotions are not unidirectional "tools" of cognition, they engage in a reciprocal relationship with cognition. So therefore they do require embracing as valid tools of learning, in the same way we incorporate reason as a tool of reckoning with our environment and ourselves. We can then feel our emotions and reason a course of action incorporating other inputs of knowledge. So in that sense, yes, emotions are inputs impacting cognition and are a means to an end, of determining a course of action. So as a sensory input of feeling with a reciprocal relationship with cognition, they are indeed a tool of the whole mind and of cognition. Emotions become a tool of cognition when we incorporate them into our reasoning methodology. Rand would have been better off embracing them as such. A tool is something you use. <BR/> <BR/>"In your situation, my emotion would be rational if there was a cognition behind it." <BR/><BR/>Emotions cannot be considered in themselves to be "irrational or rational" just as people cannot be considered to be "good or bad". In the latter, there is only good or bad behavior, not people. In emotion, our cognitive reactions to visceral sensory inputs would be considered to be irrational or rational. For instance, feeling depressed and then considering the a witch doctor has put you under a spell. An emotion with an accompanying irrational cognition. <BR/><BR/>"If you saw anywhere that I was irrational in this situation, please tell me. If not, please tell me, if there are any, differentiations between I would have hypothetically handled the situation and how Rand's philosophy could advised me to."<BR/><BR/>Your thought process regarding incorporating your feelings and the subsequent action was rational based on your needs and your emotional abilities. This hypothetical person seems to function well emotionally, not being co-dependent, as they made a judgment and left the damaging relationship. <BR/><BR/>So the cognitive responses people have to emotions are dependent on their emotional state. Traumatized individuals who have suffered abuse, even seemingly minor by the standards of others, may have an impossible time "reasoning" through their emotions, their accompanying cognitive functions may also be disturbed and thus their actions. <BR/><BR/>It is because Rand does not seem to give sufficient understanding to the seemingly irrational nature of some emotions that their accompanying irrational cognition's don't seem to have a valid place in Objectivism. Rand her self probably could have benefited immensely from a serious amount of psycho-therapy. She was closed to her own emotions and consequently her philosophies incorporation of emotion is lacking. <BR/><BR/>She was known to bawl "wisdom seekers" off the stage as "cheap frauds" and used the term "evil" to describe individuals quite frequently. This judgmental nature of Rand exemplifies the absurdity of taking the "axiomatic principle of free-will" to its ridiculous conclusion, that these people are knowingly and wantonly committing "evil" negates all premises of psycho-social development. <BR/><BR/>And yet, paradoxically, as Micheal Prescott points out on his site, she worshiped aspects of the psychology of a disturbed murderer. <BR/><BR/>So I really cant see Rand as having developed anything close to an encompassing system of ethics.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, I am still curious about my previously mentioned paradox.<BR/><BR/>Also, to attempt to establish intuition as naked reason destroys the nuances associated with intuition and effectively castrates it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83560432929875026812008-12-10T17:25:00.000-08:002008-12-10T17:25:00.000-08:00Micheal,Please relate that to Ayn Rand's ethics. I...Micheal,<BR/><BR/>Please relate that to Ayn Rand's ethics. I really don't understand what the confusion is. You yourself said that life is the ultimate value. In order to know how to achieve if, we need to place the preservation of life as the standard of value, (whereby value is defined as that which seeks to achieve or preserve), so we can no which values are for or against our life.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-87646895130728470732008-12-10T17:18:00.000-08:002008-12-10T17:18:00.000-08:00If I am understanding the Ghost's point correctly,...If I am understanding the Ghost's point correctly, he is saying that Rand's ethics is eudaimonistic. That is, Rand is not concerned about merely surviving, but about thriving or flourishing. <BR/><BR/>I am not sure that Rand's own writings would <I>consistently</I> support this point, but let's say they do. It doesn't help her ethical system, because there are insuperable problems with any version of a eudaimonistic ethics.<BR/><BR/>The first eudaimonsitic ethicist we know of was Aristotle. He wrote a long time ago and his writings are widely known, so if his ideas were so compelling, why is this issue not already resolved? The answer is that Aristotle's ethical system is not logically defensible. <BR/><BR/>Essentially, Aristotle held that the standard of value is a life well lived. But you can easily see the problem. How can we say whether or not a life is well lived unless we already have a standard of value? <BR/><BR/>Different people have different ideas about what constitutes a life well lived. Some people might desire a life of contemplation, or a life of self-sacrifice, or a life of religious devotion, or a life of money-making, or a life of wild sex. One person's idea of a life well lived will differ from another person's, often quite radically. A sadist might think a life well lived consists of torturing as many people as possible!<BR/><BR/>So it's clear that just saying "a life well lived" is not enough. We need some other standard by which to establish what "well lived" means. <BR/><BR/>Aristotle implicitly seems to have chosen the standard of "what my fellow citizens admire." Thus his "great-souled man" is distinguished by the traits that Athenians of Aristotle's day looked favorably upon. But this merely pushes back the problem one step. How do we know that the Athenians' standards were the right ones? If I lived in a society of cannibals, "a life well lived" might consist in being the best cannibal, but this standard would not be acceptable in other societies. <BR/><BR/>Here we have the problem at the heart of eudaimonistic ethics. To know what it means to "live well" or to "thrive" or to "flourish" or to "live life to the fullest" or to "be all you can be," we first need some other, pre-existing moral standard. This Rand does not supply, except by vague genuflections in the direction of "biological survival" (which does not help her eudaimonistic cause) and "reason" (which is too open-ended a concept to lend support to any particular inference - if you doubt it, consider that almost every philosopher in history has claimed to have reason on his side). <BR/><BR/>There is something appealing about Aristotle's great-souled man, but this is only because we in the modern world admire some of the same qualities that the ancient Athenians did. But if we are seeking to ground our ethics in objective facts, we need more than the sentiment of our admiration to serve as the foundation.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-87927298059589585782008-12-10T16:37:00.000-08:002008-12-10T16:37:00.000-08:00Andrew:I really don't understand how this cult of ...Andrew:<BR/><BR/>I really don't understand how this cult of misunderstanding of Rand's philosophy came about. Her point wasn't that emotions are not to be used to determine one's actions, but that they are not tools of cognition. In your situation, my emotion would be rational if there was a cognition behind it. I feel like I'm being treated like trash by this particular individual. I make notes of how he is terrible to me: i.e. he insults my mother, he puts out cigarettes on my clothes, etc. I can say that I am in constant loathing of my environment when I am in that situation. I look to see if there's any value that I will achieve that's greater than momentary comfort. If I see there is none, I would conclude there's is no rational purpose to stay around this thoroughly contemptible, detestable person, in which I will escort myself out of his field of interactive influence. If you saw anywhere that I was irrational in this situation, please tell me. If not, please tell me, if there are any, differentiations between I would have hypothetically handled the situation and how Rand's philosophy could advised me to. <BR/><BR/>"Emotion and intuition as such have an equally important role to play in epistemology as reason and the human experience will be richer for it." <BR/><BR/>I think intuition could be considered reason also. It still integrates perceptions into concepts, forming knowledge from those concepts. I certainly would imagine that a cognition guided with volition would be more proficient at finding truth than an nonvolitional cognition.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9499427199253366792008-12-10T15:44:00.000-08:002008-12-10T15:44:00.000-08:00Herb-Can you clear up this paradox of your design?...Herb-<BR/><BR/>Can you clear up this paradox of your design? <BR/><BR/>Rands philosophy is closed and yet also open to future discoveries of psychology and biology, however, Rand designed her system so it would be impervious to these future discoveries. <BR/><BR/>If you don't recognize it all I will go back and quote it. <BR/><BR/>"Of course, the only rational epistemology to justify ethics is that of reason. Without it, man has no volition and no ability to relate what he thinks to how he acts, because he can't actually think."<BR/><BR/>If someone is horrible to you and you become very upset. Although you feel upset, this feeling is not enough to justify an ethical judgment about the behavior you encountered? To me, this gives another person ability to dismiss your ethical judgment because it is not "rational". Is that right?<BR/><BR/>An ethical judgment can be a visceral thing initially. Then reasoned and deliberated after the original intuitive insight has been made. <BR/><BR/>Rand is noted for using this "reason" in emotive affairs. As I am sure the Brandens could attest to, she expected people to be "reasonable" in personal matters of life, love, relationships. A place where intuitive emotional judgments happen faster and more profoundly than can be "reasoned". <BR/><BR/>I am not denying that reason is an important link in the whole process of formulating action as man. But its simply a component that needs other inputs in order to develop a successful life system. <BR/><BR/>However, on a basic level our primary drives our biological. When we make a spear to fish to eat we use reason, but reason is just a tool like the spear. Reason may lead to creating more tools, but reason cannot outpace our evolution. The caveman cannot reason his way to designing a computer. <BR/><BR/>Correspondingly, as we move through the course of history, evolving and moving up Maslows hierarchy of needs pyramid, our ability to reason increases. We deal with more and more complicated problems of cognitive and emotional natures. The complexity of our internal and external interaction increases as our cognitive abilities increase. <BR/><BR/>Philosophy and its epistemology then starts to play a more central role in society. The more tools our species has in our intellectual tool box, the less we are a victim of evolutionary determinism.<BR/><BR/>Einstein was noted as being extremely creative and transcendental thinker. His creativity and intuition took him to places that his extremely high cognitive abilities were able to bind with logic and to articulate. <BR/><BR/>Emotion and intuition as such have an equally important role to play in epistemology as reason and the human experience will be richer for it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Sensation presupposes knowledge"<BR/><BR/>Bertrand RussellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-15082893403332629362008-12-10T15:23:00.000-08:002008-12-10T15:23:00.000-08:00Can you please tell me exactly what is missing her...Can you please tell me exactly what is missing <A HREF="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> that would give a rational justifiable view of happiness from an Objectivist perspective of rational egoism?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.com