Morals????

[Stella_Omega]

James,
These were incredibly important issues, at the time. And the reason they were so incredibly important was that society had collectively defined them as important issues-- until the bulk of society decided they were not so incredibly important. Some people still think they are incredibly important.

People have always had a problem telling the difference between what's important to them, personally, and what's important to society.

One of my favorite examples of this, was during those now-long-ago blackouts in New York City, when some five hundred or more gathered in Central park for the Rapture. They figured that the power outage was pure proof of the end of the world-- when all it was really, was the plans of men going awry...

 

[Verdad]

Thanks. These references more or less confirm my notion that ethics are somehow on a higher plane than morals -- less objective, more universally accepted, and more important to the maintaining social order.

This thought was prompted by Stella's (and others) very vigorous assertion that nudity (at leat at a nude beach) was not even a "moral" issue.

Back in the 60's, when I was in college, we were struggling to break out of a very rigid moral code. We were trying to find a way of being "good" people while doing "immoral" things like having premarital sex and smoking pot.

Now, I know this sounds almost silly today, but at the time these were serious issues. This is the time frame where the concepts of mutual consent, and "as long as nobody gets hurt" became popular as the basis of a greatly modified moral code.

I wonder, in the discussion we've been having so far, if we should have been paying more attention to the distinction between ethics and morals -- or doesn't anyone care at this point?

To be frank, definitions of ethics vs. morals are so numerous and often contradictory I pretty much gave up on the distinction and began using the words interchangeably for most purposes.

As for the rest, I'm still struggling to understand how nudity could be an issue. Nudity per se is surely morally neutral, so I'm trying to guess with what you might be associating it. Could it be that you're asking something like, "What if everyone stopped wearing clothes?"

If so, well, I think winters would be nasty, summers wouldn't be all that pleasant either, the world would look duller than ever, and as for sexuality, we'd be likely less obsessed with it than we are now. Usually, that's my argument against nudity!

Truthfully, though, the question is mildly amusing, kind of like wondering, "If pigs could fly, would they shit on monuments?" but the premise is equally far-fetched in both cases. Human beings have been clothing and adorning themselves ever since there'd been human beings, and they're just not likely to stop.

But that brings us back to beginning, since it means we can talk of public nudity only in context of limited venues. That's where it will stay, really, so I have to ask again, what should be controversial about such venues being available to those who are interested?

And, if it's not really nudity but something else you have in mind, could you maybe formulate it better? I'm sure we all are interested in being good human beings, but conceptual differences can be very puzzling. I just can't tell what you believe to be at stake here.

 

[Verdad]

And here I thought Behaviorism passed on with B.F. Skinner; if not, it should have.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

If any passive observer can wade through this without upchucking; you win a medal!

Amicus

Ami, I was kind of curious ever since you posted this. What is your beef with behaviorism? If you feel like saying, that is.

 

[WRJames]

As for the rest, I'm still struggling to understand how nudity could be an issue. Nudity per se is surely morally neutral, so I'm trying to guess with what you might be associating it. Could it be that you're asking something like, "What if everyone stopped wearing clothes?"

Well, nudity per se was never the issue. What I pointed out in my first post was that if you plunk people down in the middle of a nude beach, it's not unlikely that they'll take their clothes off. Even if it had never occurred to do such a thing in public. And why? Everyone else is naked. No one is going to mind if you are naked. You aren't going to be conspicuous -- (unless, maybe you have have an unusual physique, or you get a hard on). It's socially acceptable within that context, and it feels nice to be naked -- assuming it's a nice warm day. Even better, if the beach is "clothing optional" -- well, what's the harm in that, no one is going to force you to take your clothes off, and people will go there and guess what -- a lot of them discard their bathing suits after a while.

Which is all harmless, and I never implied it was not.

But the same factors -- it's okay, everyone else is doing it, there's no reason not to -- can also unleash some very nasty behavior, which was the point of my second example.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But the same factors -- it's okay, everyone else is doing it, there's no reason not to -- can also unleash some very nasty behavior, which was the point of my second example.

This is plenty true.

But hardly the point, since the reason we have commonly agreed upon morals in the first place is to draw distinctions between the things that harm no one and the things that harm other people. Rape, robbery, murder, battery, slander. To one extent or another, immoral in most ethos shared by any commonality.

 

[WRJames]

This is plenty true.

But hardly the point, since the reason we have commonly agreed upon morals in the first place is to draw distinctions between the things that harm no one and the things that harm other people. Rape, robbery, murder, battery, slander. To one extent or another, immoral in most ethos shared by any commonality.

Well, true enough. But there are some moral values which are not universally shared.

Another interesting aspect of this is the attitude towards the immorality of OTHERS.

Now, truly conservatice Christians believe that we will be collectively punished for allowing immoral behavior to flourish. They use the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is why some of them went so far as to call 9 11 a retribution for allowing homosexuality to be legal in this country.

Most of us on this forum probably think that this is unbelievably stupid.

However -- liberal Christians and and non believers with a "social conscience" are just as upset about violations of human rights and social justice. So it isn't so much that you don't take a moral stand -- it's more what activities you consider immoral and in need of rectification.

Of course, it is perfectly obvious to everyone that their definition of morality is the correct one and the other side is totally off base.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Moral values that aren't universally shared, might be considered "mores."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, true enough. But there are some moral values which are not universally shared.

Another interesting aspect of this is the attitude towards the immorality of OTHERS.

Now, truly conservatice Christians believe that we will be collectively punished for allowing immoral behavior to flourish. They use the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is why some of them went so far as to call 9 11 a retribution for allowing homosexuality to be legal in this country.

Most of us on this forum probably think that this is unbelievably stupid.

However -- liberal Christians and and non believers with a "social conscience" are just as upset about violations of human rights and social justice. So it isn't so much that you don't take a moral stand -- it's more what activities you consider immoral and in need of rectification.

Of course, it is perfectly obvious to everyone that their definition of morality is the correct one and the other side is totally off base.

As for the Cons, it's not only stupid, it's contrary to what the Bible says. God sent his angels into the cities to remove any riteous persons, and they found only Lot and his family. In other words, the good were saved and only the sinners died.

We sometimes do the same thing here. People write sarcastically of the "good Germans" during the Nazi era, and revile them for not preventing the Holocaust. Even those who knew just what was happening couldn't do anything to prevent it, any more than I can force the voters of CA to vote to recognize gay marriages.

 

[Verdad]

But the same factors -- it's okay, everyone else is doing it, there's no reason not to -- can also unleash some very nasty behavior, which was the point of my second example.

You make a perfect case for why it's important to distinguish morals from mores and such. Mores you can take or leave (to an extent, at any rate, but that's another topic); morals, you should not.

If you're in a group of people that insists skinny-dipping is the way to go, you can say, "Woo-hoo, lets!" or you can say, "Get out of here, guys, I'm not doing it!" Provided you don't have a previous obligation (e.g. you're not under a promise not to do something like that), ethics has nothing whatsoever to say about your decision. Do as you like, and do as is good for you.

But if you're in a group of people that says, "Hey, there's a smelly beggar down at the corner. Let's kick his ass!" then you certainly do have an ethical obligation. At the very least, not to participate, and if possible, stop them. There's nothing gray or situational here, and there's nothing that's a matter of personal preference. Who the group is, who the guy is, who you are, matters not. It is wrong.

This is precisely why one has to be aware of the difference, and why Golden Rule—which is, by the way, by no means a recent invention—serves one well in this and almost any situation. Burying that ethical core under a pile of arbitrary rules and trying to present them as if they were all of equal importance is downright dangerous. If one is handed a long list of prohibitions that barely distinguishes "don't dye your hair green" from "don't kill", without explanation apart from "decent people don't do any of these", one could truly find himself uncertain as to which is which.

 

[Verdad]

Another interesting aspect of this is the attitude towards the immorality of OTHERS.

Now, truly conservatice Christians believe that we will be collectively punished for allowing immoral behavior to flourish. They use the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is why some of them went so far as to call 9 11 a retribution for allowing homosexuality to be legal in this country.

Most of us on this forum probably think that this is unbelievably stupid.

However -- liberal Christians and and non believers with a "social conscience" are just as upset about violations of human rights and social justice. So it isn't so much that you don't take a moral stand -- it's more what activities you consider immoral and in need of rectification.

Of course, it is perfectly obvious to everyone that their definition of morality is the correct one and the other side is totally off base.

The attitude toward morality of others is no mystery. Different ethoses actually tend to be quite similar around many key points. It's the folklore added on top, the very thing I mentioned above, that makes them appear so radically different.

The folklore strengthens group identity and cohesion, though. It makes any given 'us' better than any given 'them', so of course any group will try to present its mores as inherently superior. What better way to do that than to lump the mores together with morality? If 'they' merely listen to uncool music or wear uncool shoes, we could maybe forgive them that, but if 'they' are evil, well, that's something else then, isn't it? Throw in the ultimate form of appeal to authority—"God says we're right, too"—and you're in business.

Human beings are not likely to abandon this grouping tendency, but that's okay; in its positive manifestations, we call it team spirit. It's all the more important, though, to tease apart these, let's say, team-building strategies, from genuine ethical considerations.

 

[amicus]

Ami, I was kind of curious ever since you posted this. What is your beef with behaviorism? If you feel like saying, that is.

~~~

Hello Verdad, you beckon; I follow:

My personal rejection of Behaviorism as a valid concept is in its' rejection of the human mind as a factor in determining the nature of an individual. Behaviorism postulates that man is a creature of his environment and nothing else.

I have listed two links and brief excerpts from two of many sites from a search of, 'critics of Behaviorism'.

Having recently gone through the requirements to a Master's Degree in Psychology with my daughter, I can state with some certainty that Behaviorism is no longer taught as a functioning philosophy or theory of psychology.

I suggest to those who are having difficulty in adjusting to the problems of life, that you carefully regard the contents of the second link, and perhaps find a new avenue to approach an understanding of the basic nature of man and his mind.

~~~


http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/naik.html

For as long as human beings can remember, they have always been interested in what makes them who they are and what aspects of their being set each of them apart from others of their species. The answer according to behaviorists is nothing more than the world in which they grew up. Behaviorism is the theory that human nature can be fully understood by the laws inherent in the natural environment.

As one of the oldest theories of personality, behaviorism dates back to Descartes, who introduced the idea of a stimulus and called the person a machine dependent on external events whose soul was the ghost in the machine. Behaviorism takes this idea to another level. Although most theories operate to some degree on the assumption that humans have some sort of free will and are moral thinking entities, behaviorism refuses to acknowledge the internal workings of persons. In the mind of the behaviorist, persons are nothing more than simple mediators between behavior and the environment (Skinner, 1993, p 428).

~~~
http://www.sntp.net/behaviorism/ayn_rand_skinner.htm

("The Book", refers to B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity")

The book itself is like Boris Karloff's embodiment of Frankenstein's monster: a corpse patched with nuts, bolts and screws from the junkyard of philosophy (Pragmatism, Social Darwinism, Positivism, Linguistic Analysis, with some nails by Hume, threads by Russell, and glue by the New York Post). The book's voice, like Karloff's, is an emission of inarticulate, moaning growls - directed at a special enemy: "Autonomous Man."

"Autonomous Man" is the term used by Mr. Skinner to denote man's consciousness in all those aspects which distinguish it from the sensory level of an animal's consciousness - specifically: reason, mind, values, concepts, thought, judgment, volition, purpose, memory, independence, self-esteem. These, he asserts, do not exist; they are an illusion, a myth, a "prescientific" superstition. His term may be taken to include everything we call "man's inner world," except that Mr. Skinner would never allow such an expression; whenever he has to refer to man's inner world, he says: "Inside your skin."

~~~

Even ole JBJ may have a comment to offer concerning Behaviorism?

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

~~~

Hello Verdad, you beckon; I follow:

My personal rejection of Behaviorism as a valid concept is in its' rejection of the human mind as a factor in determining the nature of an individual. Behaviorism postulates that man is a creature of his environment and nothing else.

I have listed two links and brief excerpts from two of many sites from a search of, 'critics of Behaviorism'.

Having recently gone through the requirements to a Master's Degree in Psychology with my daughter, I can state with some certainty that Behaviorism is no longer taught as a functioning philosophy or theory of psychology.

I suggest to those who are having difficulty in adjusting to the problems of life, that you carefully regard the contents of the second link, and perhaps find a new avenue to approach an understanding of the basic nature of man and his mind.

~~~


http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/naik.html



~~~
http://www.sntp.net/behaviorism/ayn_rand_skinner.htm

("The Book", refers to B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity")




~~~

Even ole JBJ may have a comment to offer concerning Behaviorism?

Amicus

Hmmm… If you regard behaviorism as a philosophy, it certainly doesn't offer much. That's not what it is, though. It's rather a method. The disregard for internal processes is not to say they don't exist or have no relevance. It's just an attempt to do away with a myriad of unnecessary constructs (unnecessary for a particular purpose) so that one could focus on that which is directly observable.

The idea is sort of like saying, "Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that we can't possibly know what goes on inside. Then, let's see where that leads us. Can we still learn something? Can we still make predictions or modifications?" The answer to both is yes, indeed, so I'd call that a successful method.

I wasn't sure why you'd dislike it, because it seemed to me it would be a good companion to objectivism. They both share a certain "what you see is what you get" angle and neither frets over ding-an-sich's, so to say. But I too would love to hear what James says.

 

[amicus]

Hmmm… If you regard behaviorism as a philosophy, it certainly doesn't offer much. That's not what it is, though. It's rather a method. The disregard for internal processes is not to say they don't exist or have no relevance. It's just an attempt to do away with a myriad of unnecessary constructs (unnecessary for a particular purpose) so that one could focus on that which is directly observable.

The idea is sort of like saying, "Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that we can't possibly know what goes on inside. Then, let's see where that leads us. Can we still learn something? Can we still make predictions or modifications?" The answer to both is yes, indeed, so I'd call that a successful method.

I wasn't sure why you'd dislike it, because it seemed to me it would be a good companion to objectivism. They both share a certain "what you see is what you get" angle and neither frets over ding-an-sich's, so to say. But I too would love to hear what James says.

~~~

"...For instance, the philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term noumenon synonymously with the phrase thing in itself (German: Ding an sich)..."

Ayn Rand had some rather unkind words for Herr Kant, and for Skinner and Behaviorism in general, thas why I provided the link for you.

"...The idea is sort of like saying, "Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that we can't possibly know what goes on inside. Then, let's see where that leads us. Can we still learn something? Can we still make predictions or modifications?" The answer to both is yes, indeed, so I'd call that a successful method..."

The answer to both, in reality, is no. Without understanding and learning to use the cognitive mind, you, placed in a forest, would not survive; you, placed alone and penniless, on the streets of New York City, without using your mind, could only offer your body in exchange for food.

People who cannot use their minds because they are broken and do not function are called 'insane' and they populate asylums.

"...what you see is what you get..."

Nature...is what you see, and without using your mind, what you get; raw nature.

Ms. Rand wrote Fountainhead, in part, in tribute to the mind of man and his creations, those tall precise buildings sitting on a former swamp on Manhattan Island. It is man's ability to overcome nature and shape it to suit his needs that sets him apart from lower animals.

Reject the mind and you reject sentient life.

You keep throwing me curve balls; I actually thought you really wanted to know, I was wrong, nevermind...(but then, it may be a 'girl thing', y'know, emotions and such?)

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

No curve balls, Ami. I drew an association between behaviorism and objectivism based on their, well, objective approach, but if the parallel doesn't make sense to you and if you see them as irreconcilable, I've no axe to grind. We may yet disagree more vigorously over something of greater importance, but this was purely conversational.

If you will accept the next comment in the same spirit, I want to respond to this:

The answer to both, in reality, is no. Without understanding and learning to use the cognitive mind, you, placed in a forest, would not survive; you, placed alone and penniless, on the streets of New York City, without using your mind, could only offer your body in exchange for food.

People who cannot use their minds because they are broken and do not function are called 'insane' and they populate asylums.

Of course this is true. But the gist of gists of behaviorism isn't that one doesn't have cognitive processes or doesn't need them. Rather, it's that you can learn about someone else from observing their behavior, even if you don't know what their cognitive processes are.

You can still think it's a shabby approach; no problem. There's no trap of any kind in my saying this.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Moral values that aren't universally shared, might be considered "mores."

O tempora, o mores!

But, seriously, yes, the overall values of our society evolve continuously through a process of conversation, of which popular culture forms one of the principal media. So, as story-tellers, part of what we do is record and evolve and transmit the values of our culture, in an eternally changing babble within which, from time to time, some voices will sound louder than others.

And within that babble, we as narrators of erotic narrative have a particular and important role - it it our task to nudge the stream of the moral conversation in a more open, a more accepting, a more permissive, a less judgemental direction. Yes, folks what we do here is culturally important, and it is culturally important precisely because it has a direct and, in my opinion, humane impact on the culture we pass on to rising generations.

But seriously, having said all that, and despite our morality emerging from this conversation, there is not and cannot be any values that are 'universally shared', because we're all individuals and take different things out of the conversation. Yes, some values will at some times be more 'main stream', shouted loudest...

Unless, of course, there was a God with tablets of stone. But that's really not something I'm going to worry about.

 

[WRJames]

Actually the tall buildings are built where there is bedrock -- midtown and at the southern tip

 

[amicus]

Even beneath swamp, there is bedrock, and steel and concrete anchors are used, as they were also in the construction of Taipei One, the worlds tallest building in the modern era.

Much of Miami was built on coral and the verges of the Everglades, a primordial swamp.

Your commentary is specious sophistry and without merit.

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

Even beneath swamp, there is bedrock, and steel and concrete anchors are used, as they were also in the construction of Taipei One, the worlds tallest building in the modern era.

Much of Miami was built on coral and the verges of the Everglades, a primordial swamp.

Your commentary is specious sophistry and without merit.

Amicus

Well -- actually it's factual, in the case of Manhattan. I know I was giving a talk at the Martin Marietta facilities one time in Orlando, and they were explaining how there was no bedrock -- the buildings more or less floated on concrete boats buried in the muck. But there is probably a limit to how tall those buildings can be without a solid foundation.

Does this have anything to do with morals -- probably not. Just a point of information.

 

[amicus]

Following the 9/11 event, there were several programs concerned with the excavation of the site and the concrete, 'bathtub', they used to keep the water from the nearby river out of the foundation during original construction.

I am not conversant on the nature of all the construction on that island and I used it merely to illustrate a point concerning cognitive awareness of 'man the builder', as opposed to the nomadic Indian tribes that inhabited the area before the Europeans came.

And the subject concerns 'behaviorism', the concept that man has no access to his inner self, no free will, no use of cognitive facilities to guide his actions.

I don't mind criticism, I learn from it, but it does become tiring when the criticism is not intended to expand the subject. My regrets for the sharp answer I gave, it was uncalled for.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

SimonBrooke:

"...there is not and cannot be any values that are 'universally shared', because we're all individuals and take different things out of the conversation..."

~~~

Not to single you out personally, just the argument you and many others continue to insist on, that of no absolute or universally shared values.

We are a single species, homo sapiens, the 'wise' animal and we share many simularities far more than dissimularities, even down to blood and blood type, for transfusions as an example.

We are indeed all individuals, as you say, but we share not just a common heritage but our sense each and all, work the same way with minor variations.

To assume we do not share universal values, is to reject even discussion of the possibility that we do share the same values, ethics and morals.

I am not pushing or selling any particular brand of moral persuasion, merely the idea that the task of man is to understand and comprehend those things we have in common with each other and why.

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

SimonBrooke:

~~~

Not to single you out personally, just the argument you and many others continue to insist on, that of no absolute or universally shared values.

We are a single species, homo sapiens, the 'wise' animal and we share many simularities far more than dissimularities, even down to blood and blood type, for transfusions as an example.

We are indeed all individuals, as you say, but we share not just a common heritage but our sense each and all, work the same way with minor variations.

To assume we do not share universal values, is to reject even discussion of the possibility that we do share the same values, ethics and morals.

I am not pushing or selling any particular brand of moral persuasion, merely the idea that the task of man is to understand and comprehend those things we have in common with each other and why.

Amicus

I would have to take some exception to you. There are no absolutely shared values. We are a single species, but there are thousands of societies in the world, and some of them have practices, or recently had practices, that would be alien and repugnant to most of us. Cannabalism, for instance, is still practiced some places, or was until recently. It is not repugnant to the people in those places. Female genital mutilation is practiced in some places, even though it is against the law. In some societies, a father or other older male relative will consider it his familial duty to kill a female family member who is less than absolutely obedient. Slavery is probably still practiced in some places, although it may be against the law. It was practiced in the USA only 150 years ago.

It wasn't that long ago that, in some societies, a widow was expected to hurl herself onto her late husbands remains and be burned alive along with his body. If she didn't do it, her in-laws would throw her there, with the approval of onlookers. In some places, if a person can no longer pull his own weight, so to speak, he or she is taken to the wilderness and left there to die.

We can probably come up with many examples. As I say, no matter how cruel or evil a certain act might seem to be, there is, or was, almost certainly some society on Earth where it would be considered the norm, and perfectly reasonable and even necessary.

 

[amicus]

No curve balls, Ami. I drew an association between behaviorism and objectivism based on their, well, objective approach, but if the parallel doesn't make sense to you and if you see them as irreconcilable, I've no axe to grind. We may yet disagree more vigorously over something of greater importance, but this was purely conversational.

If you will accept the next comment in the same spirit, I want to respond to this:

Of course this is true. But the gist of gists of behaviorism isn't that one doesn't have cognitive processes or doesn't need them. Rather, it's that you can learn about someone else from observing their behavior, even if you don't know what their cognitive processes are.

You can still think it's a shabby approach; no problem. There's no trap of any kind in my saying this.

~~~

Going out on a limb here, assuming, heh, you won't saw it off behind me.

You may be addressing two things here, emotion and/or faith, belief which, you assert, guide mans' actions without the cognitive, decision making apparatus working.

I am going to occupy a rather large amount of space here to make a point, hopefully one that bowls you over with reason and logic and is ultimately persuasive.(good luck, ami)

Let us deal with the faith and belief issue first, as it is the more simple of the two. If faith can permit Joan d' Arc, to burn at the stake for her faith rather than renounce it and there are many documented instances of similar examples of faith overcoming reason or cognition, belief in Miracles, Stigmata and acts of self sacrifice for a faith, crowned by the religion itself with Christ dying on the cross for sinners.

As a summary, faith and belief can and do over ride mans' cognitive ability, his ability to reason and pursue realistic beneficial goals.

Rand defined 'emotion', as 'automatic responses to previously made value judgments" (paraphrase, but accurate, I think).

It is an interesting postulation, which at first blush seems unreasonable, as we all have experienced many emotions, ranging from love to hate, fear, pleasure, embarrassment and pride.

On the other hand, what are emotions anyway? Where do they come from? Do we learn them, if so, how and why and when?

The human male differs from the human female. I know; bold statement.

Even little boys and little girls are different...from birth. Thas a fact, without tact, but proven, observable and documented, you need not take my word.

(I am working towards something here,)

I inferred from your third paragraph, that you are obliquely addressing emotions there, a 'feeling' or 'feelings', that guide ones' actions rather than the cognitive process; like falling in love or blushing or crying at a tender scene in a film. (am I correct?)

There is also, 'habit', I just had the thought and it may be relevant. I drove, for several years about forty miles into work at a talk radio station every morning except Sundays. There were mornings I arrived at word, wondering how I got there. The drive was made purely by habit and instinct, I guess, as part of my mind was not present during the drive. Go figure.

Ah, but back to boys and girls and the differences. Nature designed them differently, to fulfill certain evolutionary purposes. The larger size of the male, the greater height (as averages), different secreting glands for different chemicals for different purposes. More body fat on the female, ten percent more to be precise(Science and Anatomy of Sex) a current TLC, the learning channel, series.

There is much political hoorah about women doing poorly in math and sciences as compared to their male counterparts, and the, ahm, 'gist' since you used the term, is that it was and is oppression that kept women behind. Perhaps not the case at all.

Just as nature and evolution carved the physical nature, so too do they shape the psychological and emotional content of both male and female. No real big news here; we all know this from empirical data we have absorbed just by living.

We can observe and confirm, with repeated sightings, that women cry more and are more emotional and are quicker to joy or fear, than men are.

"... isn't that one doesn't have cognitive processes or doesn't need them. Rather, it's that you can learn about someone else from observing their behavior,..."

Certainly one can 'learn' by observing and expressing emotions, and I want to underline that to those who insist that man does not function by reason only, but that there are other factors, emotions; again, those pesky emotions, where, oh where, do they originate and do they just influence or do they control, 'behavior', the big part of the, 'ISM' we are discussing here.(well, kinda)

Behaviorism insists the we function by emotions only, that we are totally influenced and controlled by our environment and as each environment is different, as are individuals each unique, that there can be no common, universal means to seek and acquire values, morals or ethics.

That is why my objection to your parallel of Objectivism and Behaviorism is so poignant; they are complete opposites.

Referring back to a program in progress; at puberty the male and female hormones begin to affect even facial features as testosterone turns the boys' face into harsh masculine lines and the progesterone, the girls' faces into softer lines and features. It also influences the vocal cords, making mens' voices lower than womens' and a host of other internal changes, psychological in nature that define the sexual differences.

Observation again, will show that men are much more reason based, rational, than women. I happen to adore women for that reason, or lack of it.)) But I will make a small admission here.

I have lived long enough and looked into the mirror of my soul sufficient times to have learned something about who I am and why; a process we all go through, I imagine.

I find that I am attracted to both the intellectual, rational, knowledgeable female as well as the fluffy, emotional cheerleader type. Yes, I know those are huge generalities, but I think my point is made.

Do the terms of 'right and wrong, 'good or bad', enter into that observation; do moral observations or conclusion apply here? I think not; I conclude that the spectrum of that which is male and that which is female, contains the extremes of both.

I was interrupted several times in the midst of the above, so, my apologies if I wandered from point to point with only tenuous connections.

One of those wise Greek Philosophers noted, "that of all the pleasures of man, learning occupies the very highest rank as it involves all the senses and the mind at the same time'(paraphrase from memory).

Even 'sex' can't compete, as the nature of the act disconnects the cognitive functions during the process.))

I think I will leave it at that and thank you for the opportunity to continue an interesting conversation. Were there a cozy little bistro nearby, we might venture to another level.



Amicus

 

[Verdad]

You make me smile when you're being impossible, Ami. I'm still not sure what pissed off Rand so much about behaviorism, but I know not to ask any more Randists about it!

On a more serious note, I did in the meantime read Rand's critique of Skinner you linked, and I understand what ticked her off. I still think she grossly misread him, on purpose or not, who's to know, but I do see what the question boils down to.

From Skinner, it's impossible not to draw some rather deterministic conclusions, and to Rand, a convinced voluntarist, that would have been an anathema. If I'd given it a thought before, I should have known right away the issue comes down to free will vs. determinism. My opinion on both Rand's and Skinner's contributions remains such as it was, but I do see what makes their views appear so radically incompatible.

As for men and women, heh, may I just politely skip over further musings this time?

If you want a curved ball, though, it just occurred to me that Ayn, the guru of reason, was one of them unreasonable creatures herself. What do you make of that? Should she be trusted?

 

[SimonBrooke]

SimonBrooke:

~~~

Not to single you out personally, just the argument you and many others continue to insist on, that of no absolute or universally shared values.

We are a single species, homo sapiens, the 'wise' animal and we share many simularities far more than dissimularities, even down to blood and blood type, for transfusions as an example.

We are indeed all individuals, as you say, but we share not just a common heritage but our sense each and all, work the same way with minor variations.

To assume we do not share universal values, is to reject even discussion of the possibility that we do share the same values, ethics and morals.

I am not pushing or selling any particular brand of moral persuasion, merely the idea that the task of man is to understand and comprehend those things we have in common with each other and why.

I'd put it stronger than that: it is not only impossible for there ever to be shared values, even if it were possible it would be impossible for us to know that there were. It is impossible to know what is going on in someone else's mind. Therefore, it's is impossible to know what their values are. Therefore, it's impossible to know whether our values are the same as theirs.

In any case it is manifestly obvious that you and I share almost no values in common, despite being of similar age, education and culture. How much more different, therefore, will those of (for example) a herdsman from Kurgistan, a monk from Thibet, or even a gay woman from London be than either of ours?

 

[Pure]

here's a problem,

ami,

and i ask open mindedly. your man of reason (and woman with slightly less), how does he decide on his goals. can he *reason* his way to them?

i know you will say "life is the highest value", and so i assume this fellow will have the goals, to stay alive and to procreate.

i understand one can examine the species and scientifically determine the basic needs, just as i can investigate the life of blue jays and see the conditions under which they thrive.

(i'm a little concerned about conflating reasoning and investigating, but let that go.)

so part of his goals, e.g. to eat and to drink are set. beyond that, man's inquiry has yielded important details, e.g., adequate protein intake. man's reason and scientific inquiry informed him about proteins, what they were and how much was needed.

but examination and inquiry also show there were statemen and philosophers (first and second rate), authors (of classics or drivel), sea captains, seamen, and executioners.

but how would one decide among these *by reason/reasoning*--for example, whether to [on a professional basis] pump gas, play music, or design skyscrapers, Roark-style?

you will say, beyond basic needs, humans have always investigated the environment, to be able to deal with it.

but how do you deal with the question of the *need* for a limited number of such investigators, e.g. scientists. should i myself become one?

if there are sufficient scientists to do research for medicine, design the technology i use, why should i NOT become the proverbial 'hewer of wood' or 'drawer of water'. when is it rational to say, 'there are enough computer scientists, i'm going to be a street sweeper'?