Ms. Rand

[Selena_Kitt]

I thought it would be obvious to all why "All living things, by nature, seek to survive" is false.

it is to me...

but I think the boys are sayin' that if you point a finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you?

In other words, if you're asking Ami to prove HIS basic premise... can you prove your own?

but hey, while all this masculine debate is fun, kind of like watching bucks rutting, really I'm just a girl sittin' off on the sidelines enjoying the show... I could be totally wrong...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

egads, buy you books and buy you books and all you do is lick the cover and eat the pages, kinky.

shhhhh! quit telling on me!

 

[Pure]

note to selena,

i'm not asking ami to prove his basic premise. i stated that a (or the) basic premise of AR's 'objective ethics' is false. and you see that.

as to 'everyone has a basic premise', i think that's false also. most people's beliefs have a number of contradictions implicit in them, indicating that (on the assumption they HAVE premises) their premises contradict.

in a way it's exciting that Rand gives each reader the opiniion that he is a philosopher, and has 'premises' and had better get them right.

OTOH, most people are not Leibnitz, Spinoza, or even B Russell. their practical actions seem to flow from a number of principles, sometimes ones that conflict-- such as 'be just' and 'show compassion.'

but even where it's the case that the actions seem to flow from one principle (such as, for a Marine, [semper fi] 'faithfully serve the honor of your country') , i'm not sure it's necessarily the case that they 'hold' one or more 'premises'-- that makes it far too intellectual.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Pure]i'm not asking ami to prove his basic premise. i stated that a (or the) basic premise of AR's 'objective ethics' is false. and you see that.

as to 'everyone has a basic premise', i think that's false also. most people's beliefs have a number of contradictions implicit in them, indicating that (on the assumption they HAVE premises) their premises contradict.

in a way it's exciting that Rand gives each reader the opiniion that he is a philosopher, and has 'premises' and had better get them right.

OTOH, most people are not Leibnitz, Spinoza, or even B Russell. their practical actions seem to flow from a number of principles, sometimes ones that conflict-- such as 'be just' and 'show compassion.'

but even where it's the case that the actions seem to flow from one principle (such as, for a Marine, [semper fi] 'faithfully serve the honor of your country') , i'm not sure it's necessarily the case that they 'hold' one or more 'premises'-- that makes it far too intellectual.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~~

"...Pure]i'm not asking ami to prove his basic premise. i stated that a (or the) basic premise of AR's 'objective ethics' is false. and you see that..."

What a bunch of gobblygook! "I stated it was false, therefore it is false?"

Yes, God, we understand.

I give you an ounce of forgiveness here, as you must be high on something.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I wonder why so many people overlook this little piece of Smith's writing?

In that passage Smith is parroting Christian dogma, a common thing for writers of his time to do. He follows up that line and a stream of similar platitudes with this:

"The administration of the great system of the universe, however, the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension; the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country: that he is occupied in contemplating the more sublime, can never be an excuse for his neglecting the more humble department . . . "

I don't mean to suggest that Smith was a hypocrite, or any more of one than any other Christian. By which I mean the perfect Christian would give away everything and go live in a cave, or a slum, catering selflessly to the needs of others while his own flesh wasted away and he quickly went to meet his maker. You literally cannot simultaneously live in the world and also take those altruistic Christian ideals literally.

Resolving this contradiction by rejecting the morality of sacrifice and altruism is an area where Rand exceeded Smith. Smith was not willing to accept this, and so his work contains contradictions. Rand was willing to accept it, and her work contains no contradictions. To be fair, Smith lived in a very different time (no Darwin, for one thing).

I still like Smith as the master of understanding human nature, and how to harness it through proper incentives to the benefit of all.

 

[Sex and Death]

Given that all positions begin with an unprovable first premise...

they do?

Yup. Although, I can certainly understand your amazement. I had the same amazed response when I learned that very thing from my Survey of Western Thought teacher in high school. Miss Gogolowski...god, she had tits that inspired many a fantasy sparring session in the boys bathroom. Those tits would perk right up, proud as you please, when we would exhibit sincere interest and enthusiasm for the material. Copious motivation. I learned a lot, that semester, and I earned an EXCELLENT for Class Participation, if I remember correctly. Ah, youth.

what is yours?)

This is a Rand thread: Don't you think it a somewhat unfair burden to say 'Don't criticize Rand unless you can show us a better system of your own design.'

Nope. You and Amicus indirectly agreed on a primary premise of Rand's work. You said that the supposition in question was wrong, and that the errancy of said supposition was in fact so wrong that it is evident beyond the need for presentation of its inaccuracy. If that is the case, then it should be a simple thing to pop out the keystone of Rand's philosophy and cause her work to crumble upon its own foundations.

If you can't put forward a better system than Rand, or offer the primary supposition on which you base your own system, then you could at least offer the system of someone else that you consider better.

I consider Einstein to be a higher representation of his vocation than Rand is of hers, yet I would hope you can make the move from relativity to at least quantum mechanics if not complex systems. Although, based on your effortless facility with mercurial ideology, you do seem to thrive on relativity.

My views have been outlined in a number of threads, and don't seem to be a mystery to most. You might drop in on the Nietzsche thread that sev and I are trying to get going.

I'm not questioning your views. I'm asking you to articulate some fundamental premise on which you base your views. You seem to claim some resonance with a "human nature" posture, yet you clearly state that some "human natures," such as the Japanese, and by association, the Malaysian, are inherently different than "our" human nature...am I understanding you accurately? I am wondering which human nature you claim ancestry in and if you might qualitatively describe its phenomenology?

Amicus has played an open hand by offering up his love of and grounding in Rand's work. I happen to like the way he plays poker, but that's my bias. I am most at home in platonism and neoplatonism. Rob seems to hang his hat on the same rack as Adam Smith. Selena seems to be enjoying and encouraging our schoolyard strutting (I'm gonna go pull her, um, pigtails, when I'm done with this). But, Pure, despite your most excellent and prolific wordsmithing, which is usually quite Socratic in its well-founded gadfly challenge, you seem here to be uncharacteritically saying, "Yeah, well...you're just a dumbhead!" You have a noble character, but you are too easily goaded into ineffectiveness. Reminds me of Marty McFly...lost it when he was called a coward. If you're going to flaunt the battery on your shoulder, don't be surprised when it gets knocked off. I dunno, maybe you could put Amicus in the position you're in now if you were to show your cards.

Incidentally, this is my working version of [objective] reality:
Life is hard
You are not important
Your life is not about you
You are not in control
You are going to die

Incidentally, the posting just above--on mixed economies-- outlines my views on the issue at hand. Is that good enough for you?

Don't get pissy with me, young man...if I have to pull this car over...!

You don't like your own medicine much, do you?

I am waiitng for the Collected Works of Pure to be released on CD-ROM so I can reference and cross-reference without having to use the cumbersome Lit search function.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm on your side. I enjoy your usual skilled polemic and iconoclastic foil of Amicus' practiced and deliberate exposition of a tightly toleranced and maturely engineered ethical system.

Go get em', tiger!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yup. Although, I can certainly understand your amazement. I had the same amazed response when I learned that very thing from my Survey of Western Thought teacher in high school. Miss Gogolowski...god, she had tits that inspired many a fantasy sparring session in the boys bathroom. Those tits would perk right up, proud as you please, when we would exhibit sincere interest and enthusiasm for the material. Copious motivation. I learned a lot, that semester, and I earned an EXCELLENT for Class Participation, if I remember correctly. Ah, youth.

Nope. You and Amicus indirectly agreed on a primary premise of Rand's work. You said that the supposition in question was wrong, and that the errancy of said supposition was in fact so wrong that it is evident beyond the need for presentation of its inaccuracy. If that is the case, then it should be a simple thing to pop out the keystone of Rand's philosophy and cause her work to crumble upon its own foundations.

If you can't put forward a better system than Rand, or offer the primary supposition on which you base your own system, then you could at least offer the system of someone else that you consider better.

I consider Einstein to be a higher representation of his vocation than Rand is of hers, yet I would hope you can make the move from relativity to at least quantum mechanics if not complex systems. Although, based on your effortless facility with mercurial ideology, you do seem to thrive on relativity.

I'm not questioning your views. I'm asking you to articulate some fundamental premise on which you base your views. You seem to claim some resonance with a "human nature" posture, yet you clearly state that some "human natures," such as the Japanese, and by association, the Malaysian, are inherently different than "our" human nature...am I understanding you accurately? I am wondering which human nature you claim ancestry in and if you might qualitatively describe its phenomenology?

Amicus has played an open hand by offering up his love of and grounding in Rand's work. I happen to like the way he plays poker, but that's my bias. I am most at home in platonism and neoplatonism. Rob seems to hang his hat on the same rack as Adam Smith. Selena seems to be enjoying and encouraging our schoolyard strutting (I'm gonna go pull her, um, pigtails, when I'm done with this). But, Pure, despite your most excellent and prolific wordsmithing, which is usually quite Socratic in its well-founded gadfly challenge, you seem here to be uncharacteritically saying, "Yeah, well...you're just a dumbhead!" You have a noble character, but you are too easily goaded into ineffectiveness. Reminds me of Marty McFly...lost it when he was called a coward. If you're going to flaunt the battery on your shoulder, don't be surprised when it gets knocked off. I dunno, maybe you could put Amicus in the position you're in now if you were to show your cards.

Incidentally, this is my working version of [objective] reality:
Life is hard
You are not important
Your life is not about you
You are not in control
You are going to die


Don't get pissy with me, young man...if I have to pull this car over...!
You don't like your own medicine much, do you?
I am waiitng for the Collected Works of Pure to be released on CD-ROM so I can reference and cross-reference without having to use the cumbersome Lit search function.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm on your side. I enjoy your usual skilled polemic and iconoclastic foil of Amicus' practiced and deliberate exposition of a tightly toleranced and maturely engineered ethical system.
Go get em', tiger!

I think I'm in love.

Reading that was the funnest thing I've done this month while wearing clothes.

Your philosphy may be a confused mess of contradictions and non-sequitors, I can't quite tell yet*, but, oh, you do it with style!

I recorded an hour of Pure speaking one time. The funny thing was, when I replayed the tape, there was nothing there . . .

(Just kidding - I never heard Pure speaking.)


* "You are not important. Your life is not about you."
On the first item, it is perfectly clear to me that my life is the most important thing in the universe, and very possibly when it ends so does the universe. There are moments when I get a whiff of the notion you express, however, and I take the argument seriously.

The second item appears to be either a content-free piece of new age fluff, or a bit of dogma from a first-century superstition. But there's not much to go on, so I don't want to read too much into it.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Reading that was the funnest thing I've done this month while wearing clothes.

you should see how much fun he is without clothes

'night Randmeisters... <grin>

 

[Pure]

Why it is false that all living things, by nature, aim at their survival;note to S&D

Pure said //PS. I thought it was manifestly self evident to all, why, "All living things, by nature, seek to survive is patently true.//

Ami said, Even that poor little spermatozoa, one in many thousands, wiggles his little tail off, until death, just to survive and fulfill his destiny...destiny...to live.

I'm not sure 'living thing' was intended to include spermatozoa: I understood it to include plants and animals. These are organisms; if you want to say, additionally, "This skin cell of Pure is living, and is seeking to survive," I find that a stretch.

I challenge you to produce any evidence at all that Rand considered 'living things' to include constituent cells of living organisms. Next you're going to be 'on' about my murdering a hair, when I pluck it from my eyebrow.

Here is a clear reference to 'organisms.'
"It is only a living organism which faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self sestaining and self generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical element remain, but its life goes out of existence" Atlas Shrugged, p. 939 {Signet edition, 1959}

Elsewhere, in the Voice of Reason, she says, "the functions of all living organism, from the simplest to the most complex--from the nutritive function in the single cell of the amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of man--are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life " (page 16).


But let this absurdity pass, ftsoa. Consider the behavior of a sperm. Deposited at the opening of the vagina, it can (and often does) move inward. This is into a more acidic environment. Acid kills off sperms, and indeed this is how most die. The spermatazoa, then, is heading *against* the gradient, to a 'death' more likely than not. This hardly sounds like a 'rational' way to preserve its 'life' (assuming it has one).

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that the male mantis is drawn to have sex, whereupon he will be eaten. That does not seem like a drive or impetus toward survival.

The behavior of mothers of a number of mammals entails moving the fight away from the young, and engaging a much larger opponent as needed. Mothers have undertaken such measures in the virtual certainty of dying.

Biologically, the impetus, if you will, is to survive long enough to pass along the genetic material; after than, individual survival becomes an off or on again goal.

Humans have been willing to sacrifice survival for state or church, as for example, missionaries going into very dangerous environments. Martyrs for the faith have declared their Christianity knowing it will mean certain death. The Falun Gong in China, in recent years, undertook dangerous publicity seeking events to demonstrate faith, with highly likely result of prison or execution.

Now all these facts are well known to most educated people.

We must assume there is an 'objectivist' pirouette that executed around these facts. One obvious line is to blur the issue of "life continuance" and "individual life continuance." Rand apparently espouses the latter since she says, that the proper aim of the individual is for himself to be the beneficiary of his acts. He is to act out of 'rational egoism', i.e., the reasonable furtherance of his self interest as a [individual] human.

{{Reference

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm
Rand: “the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.”

and see the second quote above, from VR}}

It is quite clear then, to say that 'life continuance' is involved in several of my examples, arguing on that basis is not a licit or valid move on the part of someone defending 'objectivist' ethics.
-----
Hi Sex'n'Death,

Previous poster: //Given that all positions begin with an unprovable first premise...//

Pure: they do?

Sex'n'D: Yup. Although, I can certainly understand your amazement. I had the same amazed response when I learned that very thing from my Survey of Western Thought teacher in high school. Miss Gogolowski...

Well, perhaps instead of just praising Miss G and her tits you will share her reasons and evidence for this claim. I've given mine for thinking it's false.

I'm glad you admire ami's 'open hand,' but I generally find the insults and rhetoric overpower any minimal reason, and so I let his postings and alleged arguments pass, unless I'm bored, or there is an issue for others,... or unless I'm suckered.

ure:

 

[amicus]

"...Why it is false that all living things, by nature, aim at their survival;note to S&D

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pure said //PS. I thought it was manifestly self evident to all, why, "All living things, by nature, seek to survive is patently true.//

Ami said, Even that poor little spermatozoa, one in many thousands, wiggles his little tail off, until death, just to survive and fulfill his destiny...destiny...to live.

I'm not sure 'living thing' was intended to include spermatozoa: I understood it to include plants and animals. These are organisms; if you want to say, additionally, "This skin cell of Pure is living, and is seeking to survive," I find that a stretch.

I challenge you to produce any evidence at all that Rand considered 'living things' to include constituent cells of living organisms. Next you're going to be 'on' about my murdering a hair, when I pluck it from my eyebrow.

But let this absurdity pass, ftsoa. Consider the behavior of a sperm. Deposited at the opening of the vagina, it can (and often does) move inward. This is into a more acidic environment. Acid kills off sperms, and indeed this is how most die. The spermatazoa, then, is heading *against* the gradient, to a 'death' more likely than not. This hardly sounds like a 'rational' way to preserve its 'life' (assuming it has one).

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that the male mantis is drawn to have sex, whereupon he will be eaten. That does not seem like a drive or impetus toward survival.

The behavior of mothers of a number of mammals entails moving the fight away from the young, and engaging a much larger opponent as needed. Mothers have undertaken such measures in the virtual certainty of dying.

Biologically, the impetus, if you will, is to survive long enough to pass along the genetic material; after than, individual survival becomes an off or on again goal.

Humans have been willing to sacrifice survival for state or church, as for example, missionaries going into very dangerous environments. Martyrs for the faith have declared their Christianity knowing it will mean certain death. The Falun Gong in China, in recent years, undertook dangerous publicity seeking events to demonstrate faith, with highly likely result of prison or execution.

Now all these facts are well known to most educated people.

We must assume there is an 'objectivist' pirouette that executed around these facts. One obvious line is to blur the issue of "life continuance" and "individual life continuance." Rand apparently espouses the latter since she says, that the proper aim of the individual is for himself to be the beneficiary of his acts. He is to act out of 'rational egoism', i.e., the reasonable furtherance of his self interest as a [individual] human.

{{Reference

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm
Rand: “the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.” }}

It is quite clear then, to say that 'life continuance' is involved in several of my examples, is not a licit or valid move on the part of someone defending 'objectivist' ethics.
-----
Hi Sex'n'Death,

Previous poster: //Given that all positions begin with an unprovable first premise...//

Pure: they do?

Sex'n'D: Yup. Although, I can certainly understand your amazement. I had the same amazed response when I learned that very thing from my Survey of Western Thought teacher in high school. Miss Gogolowski...

Well, perhaps instead of just praising Miss G and her tits you will share her reasons and evidence for this claim. I've given mine for thinking it's false.

I'm glad you admire ami's 'open hand,' but I generally find the insults and rhetoric overpower any minimal reason, and so I let his postings and alleged arguments pass, unless I'm bored, or there is an issue for others,... or unless I'm suckered.

ure:

~~~~~~~

Well, I suspect this is sort of a 'watershed' between Pure and Amicus, (that be me)

Pure displays and immense knowledge of many things, much beyond what the average man knows, but I disagree that the 'average man' knows anything of which we speak, but some do.

Sex & Death offered a bridge between us that could not be offered by either of us and you rejected the offer.

So be it.

"...I'm glad you admire ami's 'open hand,' but I generally find the insults and rhetoric overpower any minimal reason, and so I let his postings and alleged arguments pass, unless I'm bored, or there is an issue for others,... or unless I'm suckered...."

Pure, it is an 'open hand', the so called insults and rhetoric are just a pissing contest that you seem unable to overcome.

And I have no 'alleged' arguments, they are all based on reality and logic and reason and rationality, congruent and consistent and verifiable; whereas you offer nothing but opposition.

As Ayn Rand labored to understand, why do those of you who hate mankind do so?

Why do you reject reason and logic and rationality, the products of the human mind, in favor of the irrational, the subjective, the irrelevant?

I once thought it was the province of the female to be effusive and spontaneous as a foil to the male strictly controlled emotions. I sense the efficacy of the 'Yin Yang' opposites in human nature although I do not fully understand it.

But you shrug off reason and contemplation as a source of knowledge and wisdom and embrace doubt and uncertainty as an absolute.

It is not Aristotle or Ayn Rand that I worship, if worship is a proper word; rather it is logic and reason and rationality and consistency and non contradiction and non compromise, that guides my thoughts.

I have read as much and learned as much, I think, as you have, about all things, yet we cannot connect, and that is somewhat a shame, I think.

"...from my Survey of Western Thought teacher in high school. Miss Gogolowski..."

I wish Miss Gogolowski had perked her boobs for me, I would at least have objective reason to carry my books low down to cover my woody.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

in a nutshell, ami,

you say, _I post about reality and reason, and Pure does not._

yet anyone may examine your last post for any address to the issue, or whether it's, as in Roxanne's insult, just empty space (in 300 words).

 

[amicus]

Pure]you say, _I post about reality and reason, and Pure does not._

yet anyone may examine your last post for any address to the issue, or whether it's, as in Roxanne's insult, just empty space (in 300 words).

[/I]

~~~~~~~


WTF?

 

[rgraham666]

If any individual, regardless of species, goal is to survive and thrive, please explain to me the following phenomena, in Randist terms.

There is a species of mite that lives on fungus. If you want to pick a start to their life cycle, I'll start with the point where there are winged males and females. These mate, the males die and the females travel to another fungus and lay eggs.

All these eggs hatch only wingless females, who are born pregnant with live young, not eggs. All these young are also female. While the mother feeds on the fungus, the young eat their mother. Until there is nothing left, they break out of her carcass and start on the road to their own deaths.

This continues until the fungus is almost gone. At which point the young born become winged males and females.

From a species point of view, this is a good strategy. It allows them to make maximum use of a resource that occurs rarely, but in abundance when it does. Sucks big time for the individuals though.

There's also a species of termite. No warrior caste, but the workers defend the nest by blowing themselves up. They run up to an intruder, tighten a special muscle in their gut and POP!

Again, good for the nest, bad for the individual.

So, with these examples, how did the 'objectivists' come up with the idea that survival of the individual was the only way to be?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

As Ayn Rand labored to understand, why do those of you who hate mankind do so?

Because I'm an Aquarian... we love humanity, we just don't like the humans so much...

now there's a system completely devoid of logical, reasonable and rational thought...

let's all become astrologers and base our lives on the whim of the stars... let's dance under them, and howl at the moon, and worship the vast god of mystery...

no? *pout*

Hey, Ami, that last post to Pure was you walking just about halfway out on that bridge methinks... not the "WTF" one, the other... nice to see you there...

I knew it was all just a pissing contest... ha!

 

[Pure]

Level of debate--note to rg

With most objectivists any debate gets to namecalling, eg.,

ami why do those of you who hate mankind do so?

ami, lover of mankind,

--wonders if women should have the right to vote

--criticizes 'slits' for killing human beings with morning after pills

--wants all governments--local, state, and federal-- to cease any efforts at for instance, trying to insure that children get adequate food (free breakfasts at school) or medical care (e.g, free vaccinations)

--indeed wants all governments to have nothing to do with education

--wants to nuke Iran.

--wants the Federal Government to have a right to indefinitely detain 'suspects' without charge or trial or revealing their names.

----
Returning to the issue: Rand says,

"The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, [but] the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action...."

Goal directedness is of the essence of life, in particular:

"'Goal directed' designates the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that the result in the preservation of an organism's life." (Virtue of Selfishness, [Signet] 1964, p 16)

---
The 'specific course of action,' for humans, of course is that directed by the principles of objectivist ethics, the recommended 'code'. It dictates 'productiveness' as a virtue, which it is. But what of someone, Mr. Silverspoon, who has an inherited fortune, and just lives on it, say, going fishing every day.

The hitch is this: Most of us would agree Mr. Silverspoon is unproductive, but Rand wants to claim he offends against life. And this is not just a 'moral error,' but a 'mortal error.' He is (as with ami's statement above), says Rand, 'pursuing death,' OK. But further, Silverspoon is not actually alive (in the robust sense of the term). How could he be? {Added: Nor, of course, is Mr. S rational}

The essential quality of life of the individual is to pursue life; Silverspoon does not pursue life; Silverspoon's existence lacks an essential quality of life; hence, it is not living. Rand would say, Silverspoon has a kind of sub-life existence, or substandard life {Added: bereft of reason}. Oddly, she would additionally oppose any 'inheritance tax' ('death tax,' in neocon jargon) which, if high enough would preclude Mr. Silverspoon's substandard life in the manner described.

It can be seen that whole logical mess is due to equivocation as to 'life':
life as the amoeba has it, is one sense; life-as-Rand-wants-you-to-live -it, in another sense. (In the manner of the Pope, Rand will label the latter as "Life as the objective requirements of it [the Pope's 'natural laws] dictate it should be." {or Life based on Reason, as human life inherently is} )

Numerous philosophically informed persons have critiqued Rand, and I'm indebted to several of them, including Friedman and Bass; this website is a kind of clearing house for critiques of Objectivism (some friendly, by the 'neoObjectivists' or 'libertarians', some not):

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/

the ethics page:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/#ethics

Friedman, "Some Problems of Ayn Rand's Derivation of 'ought' from 'is' "
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html

Friedman is a libertarian.

Robert Bass,
"The Rights and Wrongs of Ayn Rand"
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/rand.html

--
rg, the answer to your last question, as per the above: They equivocate.

 

[Pure]

two simple basic questions:

can Nature give us guidance, or specific direction as to the human virtues? does Nature tell us who is 'the exemplary human being'?

givem that one finds some capacity, 'by Nature,' in humans (for example reasoning), can we infer from that fact, specific direction about how (how much, when) to use that capacity?
-------

my answers incidentally are 'no, not in the usual sense.' and 'no.'

----

The answers are interesting in that Rand, along with St. Thomas Aquinas, says 'yes' to both questions.

 

[rgraham666]

One of my favourite questions, "Most of us haven't mastered being human yet. Why would we want to be Supermen? Wouldn't we tend to fuck that up too?"

 

[Pure]

here's a few puzzles

Consider the Pope; he is the world's best know 'objective ethicist.' As he sees it, Nature decrees that sex occurs and is for reproduction. Yet the Church enjoins celibacy (I suppose because, following St. Paul, 'spirit' is higher than 'flesh.')

More consistently, it forbids condoms for birth control.

We know ami opposes--on objective grounds-- some forms of b.c. and almost all abortions. What about condoms?

Ayn, as a modern woman, I believe, had no problem at all dealing objectively with either birth control or early abortion (she approved).

Perhaps she would say, 'objectively' we do see that 'play' occurs in nature. I don't know Roxanne's objective stand, here.

My stand is pro b.c. and pro choice. If untoward consequences can be avoided, the more friendly fucking the better. And I perceive that Nature applauds this position!

 

[rgraham666]

Nature doesn't care one way or the other.

She just 'thins out' populations that grow too big for their eco-system.

The methods she uses, for humans, are The Four Horsemen; Pestilence, Famine, War and Death. These aren't very pleasant.

I prefer the proactive approach myself, for this reason.

 

[Rope64]

'Death' isn't one of the 'Four Horsemen.' The fourth is actually 'Wild Animals,' a reminder of earlier times.

Somehow I'm convinced that Wild Animals are going to be what get me. I guess my hobby of tracking them down and photographing them doesn't help.

 

[Pure]

the four. egoism. is there ever genuine conflict of interests?

In the usual reading of revelations, from the apocalyptic vision in Rev 6:2-8

//: war, famine, pestilence, and death personified as the four major plagues of mankind. //

i agree rg, with the provision that these are the big or massive killers, except possibly the last, which can be either massive or individual:

simple predation, like foxes with rabbit is a daily event involving death, retail, not wholesale; daily deaths that seem to make no difference to anything, but keep the population 'trim.'

the predation of human against human or tribe against tribe (nation v. nation) is part of nature, although it is a result, considered in another sense, of human volition.

ironically, it is a position of Rand that one should follow one's interests, but, with a few provisos, *no ones 'rational self-interest' conflicts with anyone else's.* ( defined as: one's long range best interest, determined through a process of reasoning)

this odd position reminds me of Plato and Kant--kind of pre-established 'natural harmony.' Mandeville's fable of the bees in the hive.

Returning to the realm of non human nature, it makes little sense, applied to the individual, cross species, e.g., cat vs. mouse. Of course, in the big picture the cats' activities keep the mouse population within bounds and healthy, through eating the slower, diseased mice. In that sense, the cat who kills mouse A is indeed acting in the service of his interest and *not against* the 'rational self-interests' of the remaining mice. (Sounds odd; the cat is our friend... in a sense).

In human terms, consider a tribe or group that robs, pillages and murders, while taking control--sort of Genghiz Khan style. This is their chosen way of life.

The "rational egoists" (Rand-ists) of that group-- mightn't they use a similar rationalisation/justification: that they are like brooms sweeping aside human detritus? Now, consider the individual piece of detritus' who is being killing by Khan's army: Can we say it is in the victim's 'rational self interest' to be so killed. What then of his moral 'right to life?

Conclusion: If "Nature" shows us the moral value of 'egoism,' it is not so 'nice' as Rand would have it under her doctrine of harmony among rational. One requires a load of extra premises to get to A Manly Association of the Strong, the traders, who always peacefully exchange equivalent values--e.g., pay for what's acquired. (Classically, the police are required: they make self interest coincide with interests of society; if you act in self interest, against the law, you go to jail; so your 'self interest', if minimally prudent will respect the law, i.e., not harm others.

Real individuals, including humans within "Nature," are genuinely going to violate the interests of others, and gain from it. (It is a delusion of 'reason' to think the bad always come to a bad end, caught by police, killed by avenging relatives, etc.)

The so-called ethical position of 'egoism' is fraught with problems and likely, contradictions, and is not, on the face of it, a suitable foundation, at least by itself, for laissez faire capitalism.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One of my favourite questions, "Most of us haven't mastered being human yet. Why would we want to be Supermen? Wouldn't we tend to fuck that up too?"

Depends on whom you speak of, and your definition of humanity.

 

[rgraham666]

As my favourite writer points out, reason alone, without the other important human qualities, is itself unreasonable.

Or in the words of Northrop Frye, "It is a mistake to believe that only emotions can panic the mind."

 

[Pure]

that's a good point about reason,rg

Hume held it could not establish an ethic on its own, since there is 'no *reason* for a person not to prefer the destruction of the world, to receiving a scratch on his little finger." (IOW, only something like compassion/sympathy links us to anyone else).

Rand held, roughly that with a premise about "Reason is the unique human gift, exercized through reflection and choice,etc." you could build an ethic, IF

we have just one additional premise that we humans all have an innate desire to live. Such living being crucially dependent on the reasoning capactity.

But how to get from 'desire to live' and 'reason' to anything concrete is a bit dicey. In particular, the first step, as to whether *your desire to live* does or should matter to me is a problem.

I believe she would claim that it benefits me to trade with you, rather than eat you. I have no problem thinking that's sometimes the case, but I don't see it always the case.

(Suppose the person is very tasty, but has little to 'trade').

 

[rgraham666]

One of the problems of ideologies, in my opinion, is that all ideologies have trouble with 'the other', meaning people that won't fit into their world view.

At best, 'the other' is of no consequence. 'The other's' well being, pain or destruction is simply something that occurs and nothing can or should be done about it. Only those encompassed by the ideology are affected by it, rewarded by it.

At worst, 'the other' is danger to those inside the ideology and 'the other's' pain and destruction is an active part of the ideology.

And reason is very much exclusive by its nature. It sorts through facts and rejects those that don't fit into what reason thinks it is discovering.

Only 'irrational' traits like empathy and imagination can include 'the other'. But since they are 'irrational', these traits are often rejected by modern thought. And especially by ideologies.