Ms. Rand

[Pure]

Homosexuality

Rand and the Pope, the most famous "objectivists" have a number of common views.

The Vatican has declared homosexuality "objectively disordered" (in the old terms, 'against Nature')

Here are Rand's views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_homosexuality

[start excerpt]
In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her stance in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18)

In 1971, Rand repeated this stance, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." [1]


While Rand resisted the label of libertarian, her views were consistent with a form of libertarianism called minarchism. Her stance on the legalities of homosexuality likewise matched the mainstream libertarian perspective, leading to support of certain rights but not others. In specific, while she endorsed negative rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government, she rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector. This view presents a "complete package" that cannot be fully described by either the pro or con gay rights label.
[end excerpt]

----
Nature shows lots of mammalian sex for reproduction, by the classic cock in pussy method. Should that fairly common event be taken as the prototype, the exemplary or best example of sex?

This view creates a number of puzzles, besides 'gay sex,'; as readers probably know, a number of 'objectivist/fundamentalist' states have had laws criminalizing oral sex between man and woman (as well as anal sex).

In a word, does "nature" tell you what item goes into what orifice?

 

[Pure]

i think that's right, rg

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.

A number of thinkers have argued that the elevation of 'reason' as preeminent, led to numerous disasters, going back to the time of the French Revolution. (To be far 'irrational' motives too, have led to bloodshed.) Reason seems to end with a merciless quality, as in Eichmann or the North American eugenicists, or Pol Pot.

Rand at several points declared her fundamental allegiance to reason, moreso that even to capitalism; arguably that's a 'reason' for her intolerance. To her credit, she disavowed some uses of force to advance reason, but, in congruence with the RCC and Aquinas she allowed for 'just wars.' Some Randists, for instance, are calling for the nuking of Iran.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In a word, does "nature" tell you what item goes into what orifice?

MY nature tells me which item goes into what orifice... most definitely...

 

[Pure]

is that your reason or your libido talking?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

is that your reason or your libido talking?

hmmm... lemme feel...

oh, neither... looks like it's my inner slut

 

[Pure]

is your inner slut part of the innate or essential 'you'?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

is your inner slut part of the innate or essential 'you'?

they're all in here, sweetie... one part of a big/bigger/biggest whole... you betcha...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Reason is good. So are instincts. Feelings have a place, too, but the first two are less likely to cloud judgement than feelings. It is instinct that is most lacking in respect these days, INSHMO.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rand on emotions:

In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of "life or death," but as an issue of "happiness or suffering." Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is an automatic indicator of his body's welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man's consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. <vos_31>

But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone's authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer.

"The Objectivist Ethics," VOS, pb. p. 27

 

[amicus]

SEVERUSMAX]Reason is good. So are instincts. Feelings have a place, too, but the first two are less likely to cloud judgement than feelings. It is instinct that is most lacking in respect these days, INSHMO[/I].

~~~~~~~~

Well, severusmax, may I remind you of a school of thought that still runs through the Jesuits and can be traced back into thousands of years of intellectual pursuit by men of faith and others pursuing a course of reason.

It was thought by many, and is still held by many, that contact with women, with the emotional subjective side of life is a distraction from pure thought and pure reasoning.

It was held as a value to deny the physical urges, to limit and control the pleasures of man, even the necessities such as eating and drinking, to sharpen and focus the 'reason', the rationality of man.

The feminine is a detraction and a distraction from a pursuit of truth without the baggage of emotion. That is the root of becoming a 'monk' or a priest, or a recluse, in the Hindu sense of Nirvana.

You may not appreciate the Yin and Yang of existence, and I am not promoting a viewpoint, merely suggesting that others have thought differently about your assertations concerning the value of reason and instinct as you stated above.

One is not required to live a 'well rounded' life, one may pursue truth in any manner one chooses. I recall the writings of Herman Hesse and Damien and Sidhartha and Magester Ludi and some of the works of Goethe, which also, in my recollection, suggested that isolation from the 'feminine' instinctual, subject side of life was necessary if a man were to obtain purity of thought.

Just suggestions, I be not on a soapbox here.

amicus....

 

[amicus]

Roxanne Appleby]Rand on emotions:

In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of "life or death," but as an issue of "happiness or suffering." Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is an automatic indicator of his body's welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man's consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. <vos_31>

But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone's authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer.

"The Objectivist Ethics," VOS, pb. p. 27

[/I]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you Roxanne, for searching and posting that excerpt; it has been many years since I went through that essay, word by word and line by line.

Nice to be reminded of it.

I doubt anyone on this forum will even comprehend the import of what you have posted as they all seem to believe that emotions are random and uncontrolled and not the product of rational thought.

Nor will they even comprehend that 'emotions are the automatic response to previously made value judgments', they simply don't get it.

But I appreciate it and thought to tell you so. Thanks.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

odd mishmash (Rand); note to Sev

RAND quoted by RAHappiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is an automatic indicator of his body's welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man's consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering. Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

P: One can see how she reached her conclusions about homosexuals. They are often unhappy, and according to the above, that results from their value judgments and affinity toward death.

Conversely, the joy of an Eichmann, at seeing his death trains running on time, shows his life connection?


Rand quoted by RAMan is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. <vos_31>
------

P: The claim that emotional and cognitive mechanisms are tabula rasa--blank slates-- is pretty clearly balderdash. One would think the amicus would have to disagree with Rand, also, since the late preborn are almost-ready human beings with human characteristics. I think this may be the one claim in his universe with which I agree! Given a continuity of brain development from month 7 to birth to year 1, it would be hard to claim that either emotional or cognitive mechanisms were 'blank' at the birth point.
-----

SEV said,
Reason is good. So are instincts. Feelings have a place, too, but the first two are less likely to cloud judgement than feelings. It is instinct that is most lacking in respect these days, INSHMO.

Yes. Balance is good. And a balanced judgment of man's tendencies and motives. It is very odd to find Rand as such an apostle of Reason as the ultimate and essential characteristic of 'Man.' It reminds me of Kant, even Plato. (Both of whom she despised, but ignorantly).

{{NOTE: Sev, this is worth bringing back to Nietzsche thread, since here is a clear contrast-- Nietzsche saw through the people that put 'reason' on a pedestal.}}

As to instinct clouding judgment less than feeling... hmm. On the one hand--supporting your statemetn-- there is the famously fallible 'thinking with your dick,' exemplified in a zillion incidents, most famously Monica.

On the other hand, as to the 'cloudiness' of feelings, it's hard to generalize, in one leaves aside the violent ones.

Taking sadness as an example, say from grief or loss. It 'clouds' judgment to the point of suicide at times, but that's a judgment call, isn't it, sev? IOW, who's to say a suicide of a person whose partner of many years has died, represents a 'clouding' of judgement.

I might agree with you as to teen suicides over 'breakups', since often the pain does go away in a few weeks.

 

[amicus]

Few will note and even fewer comprehend the transition of the left to the defensive on this forum, if not elsewhere, but, I think elsewhere and everywhere.

After decades of hand holding hippies proclaiming free love, drugs and 'anything goes' the radical left wing, aka Pure's last post, has been backed into a corner, finally, where they can no longer defend butchering a child and must now attack the reason and logic of the rational pursuit of knowledge, aka, Ayn Rand.

It should be a moment of celebration, but rational people are loath to to celebrate victory over an unworthy opponent.

The liberal left has never had an honorable ethic, far from it; they represent the dregs of humanity. As Rand called them, the 'second handers', they originate nothing, suck the life blood from those who produce and prey on those less fortunate.

Rather like finding a vaccine for polio, or understanding the source of 'black plague', diptheria or small pox, humanity's small successes include overcoming the lethargy of the left, in their altruistic crusade to destroy the individual in favor of the majority of the ignorant.

It is a battle between good and evil that has been going on as long as man has been man.

It has always been necessary to identify what evil really is, and it does not exist in hell or in the demons of religion.

Instead, it exists in the feeble minds of those who believe in the collective as opposed to the individual.

This is a small arena in a much larger vista of that battle, but important also, in its own terms. there are minds to be won and lost in this insignificant fray.

While most here of the left ilk, do not even realize and certainly not acknowledge their nihilistic, existentialistic foundations, they truly are the remaining relics of an era past.

Someone should tell Pure and his cohorts that the reign of ignorance is over. You have lost; die and be buried quietly, you are no more.

Just as the 'one child policy' in China, will destroy the government of that nation, (my prediction), the forty year left wing liberal domination is at an end in this nation and will bring about similar consequences.

Your abortion will be gone, your gay rights will be gone, your affirmative action will be gone, your integration by force, will be done, your valuing the spotted owl over human habitation will be gone, your protection of pristine wilderness, over human occupation, will be gone, your quota system of women in the workplace will be gone and the free market, the free society, the freedom to exist under equal law will return and you will be but a sub chapter in history, somewhat like the Whiskey Rebellion.

I do not expect it to come about easily, nor should it. People who butchered babies should be punished and they will be.

Those who supported the legislation that forced qualified and exceptional kids to take a back seat to quota'd minorities will be called out and judged.

Those who forced women into the workplace over more qualified males, will also pay the price.

Time has shown me that I am seldom wrong in my predictions of the future. My failure has been the time frame; I have always been impatient and expect justice to be served earlier than it ever is. But justice is, inevitably served, and it will be in all that I have said above.

Trust me.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

psst,

not to interrupt the rant, but, ami,

do you think the newborn human is emotionally or cognitively a 'blank slate'?

would it be right or wrong to ascribe emotional or cognitive functioning to a fetus {pre born baby, in the parlance}, say, a couple days before birth?



PS. I do trust you. You're as reliable as an old grandfather clock.

 

[amicus]

Pure]not to interrupt the rant, but, ami,

do you think the newborn human is emotionally or cognitively a 'blank slate'?

would it be right or wrong to ascribe emotional or cognitive functioning to a fetus {pre born baby, in the parlance}, say, a couple days before birth?



PS. I do trust you. You're as reliable as an old grandfather clock.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~

You be a clever one...not that most will note, but I do.

"emotionally or cognitively", as above.

Assuming you know the definitions and the meanings of the words you used.

There are instincts, of a sort,; there are automatic responses,of a sort, that occur in the womb from about the second month onwards.

"Cognitive" is a whole different ballgame, I suspect you know that, but most who read do not. They will have to learn unless they wish to compensate me to instruct.

For your gratification, I will remind you that the mind receives input from the five senses, and begins, ( at what stage of development, no one knows for certain) to correlate, and separate the incoming sensory perceptions.

The human brain, the 'mind', from that point on, reacts in a pre determined manner, as it's physical nature and function allows.

Your cheap and unspoken challenge is for me to prove to you that a 'blank slate', tabula rasa, exists in the newborn human mind. Yet you attempt to muddy the issue by implying that sensory date 'may' exist before birth and thus would contradict the 'tabula rasa'

Nice try.

The fetus, from the moment of conception onwards is subject to stimulation of all sorts. It may be made more comfortable with foods the mother consumes, or exercise or lack of exercise the mother engages in. A hundred million possible sensory inputs that impress upon the being of that new 'life'.

But, 'Cognitive' as Roxanne Appleby referred to in the Ayn Rand excerpt, is the process of conscious thinking, which does not occur until sometime after the birth of a child.

But then, you knew that.

Thus your question: "would it be right or wrong to ascribe emotional or cognitive functioning to a fetus {pre born baby, in the parlance}, say, a couple days before birth?..." your question is not logical, not rational, not reasonable, is beyond the definitions of the words you use and is therefore not answerable.

You see, one of the faults in your system of stating that there are no absolutes, no absolute definitions of words or concepts, also limits you to your ability to question those who advocate that absolutes do exist.

You have no 'absolute' foundation upon which to base your inquiry.

So, 'would it be right or wrong', in your parlance, is a 'nonsensical' question in your terms as you advocate there is no 'absolute' right or wrong in any thing.

Why not at least attempt to be honest, for just once, and ask a real question? If I do not have the answer, I will search for it.

amicus....

 

[Pure]

But, 'Cognitive' as Roxanne Appleby referred to in the Ayn Rand excerpt, is the process of conscious thinking, which does not occur until sometime after the birth of a child.

Just to clarify, are you saying there is no consciousness before birth, or no thinking before birth, or neither one before birth.

PS: in saying 'sometime after the birth', are we talking seconds or weeks or months or ?? (for 'cognitive functioning)?

 

[amicus]

No, Pure, not gonna play your game. I know the answers, if you wish to know, learn on your own time, not mine.

But let it be noted that once again, you do not present a firm position, merely challenge another and then have the audacity and gall to ask me to educate you?

Heaven forbid.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Well, according to Rand, concept formation starts with

Perceptual level
1'awareness' (of entities)--implicit concept of entity.

2then recognizing a 'same object'--implicit concept 'identity'

the
3 Conceptual level (proper),
"grasping similarities and differences" among the identified entities. and the concept is of 'unit' (group/set member).

She believe the last is peculiar not man, not found in animals, that an animal cannot organize its perceptual field.

----
Returning to the 'blank slate' at birth, in cognition.

She allows the baby perception, levels one and two; she seems prepared to concede 'implicit concepts.'

But as regards the 'blank slate,' It's doubtful she means perception, and presumably she may mean the sort of conceptual functioning (3) involving similarities or differences--grasping 'units'. Depending on the level here, we may be talking weeks or months, though I think an infant can conceptualize a 'rattle' or 'noisemaking' item quite early (weeks).

The claim, then, as I interpret it, does not really related, in timing, to birth. Sometime after birth, one can say that the concepts are not merely implicit. Perhaps before one year, going by speech, we can see naming of objects, by calling out, for example, 'ca[r]!'

However, the lower conceptual levels found after a few weeks and months are certainly found in animals, too; my dog knows what a ball is, and has a special liking for soccer balls. More generally, he knows what a chasable/retrievable object is.

----
What's the significance of all of this: Rand's attempts to demarcate 'man' in terms of reason, and in terms of concept formation are not working very well. Of parrots, it's said they operate at a two year old's (human's) level. Certainly they can call out for something, like 'food', or on seeing something 'label' it and request it (ask for food).

It might be pointed out that, like some philosophers of a hundred or a thousand years ago, Rand is essentially doing 'armchair psychology.'
These are, after all, empirical scientific questions about the emotions and cognitioins of fetus and newborns, and there is a body of literature to which R makes no reference. As noted by several critics, she is profoundly ignorant of brain and neuroanatomy, including the developmental side (true of many in the humanities).

 

[amicus]

Pure]Well, according to Rand, concept formation starts with

Perceptual level
1'awareness' (of entities)--implicit concept of entity.

2then recognizing a 'same object'--implicit concept 'identity'

the
3 Conceptual level (proper),
"grasping similarities and differences" among the identified entities. and the concept is of 'unit' (group/set member).

She believe the last is peculiar not man, not found in animals, that an animal cannot organize its perceptual field.

----
Returning to the 'blank slate' at birth, in cognition.

She allows the baby perception, levels one and two; she seems prepared to concede 'implicit concepts.'

But as regards the 'blank slate,' It's doubtful she means perception, and presumably she may mean the sort of conceptual functioning (3) involving similarities or differences--grasping 'units'. Depending on the level here, we may be talking weeks or months, though I think an infant can conceptualize a 'rattle' or 'noisemaking' item quite early (weeks).

The claim, then, as I interpret it, does not really related, in timing, to birth. Sometime after birth, one can say that the concepts are not merely implicit. Perhaps before one year, going by speech, we can see naming of objects, by calling out, for example, 'ca[r]!'

However, the lower conceptual levels found after a few weeks and months are certainly found in animals, too; my dog knows what a ball is, and has a special liking for soccer balls. More generally, he knows what a chasable/retrievable object is.

----
What's the significance of all of this: Rand's attempts to demarcate 'man' in terms of reason, and in terms of concept formation are not working very well. Of parrots, it's said they operate at a two year old's (human's) level. Certainly they can call out for something, like 'food', or on seeing something 'label' it and request it (ask for food).

It might be pointed out that, like some philosophers of a hundred or a thousand years ago, Rand is essentially doing 'armchair psychology.'
These are, after all, empirical scientific questions about the emotions and cognitioins of fetus and newborns, and there is a body of literature to which R makes no reference. As noted by several critics, she is profoundly ignorant of brain and neuroanatomy, including the developmental side (true of many in the humanities).[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~

It seems you are having difficulty in understanding the concept of 'objectivity', I am not certain I can help you here.

I wonder what the students of Archimedes, or Pythagorus, or Euclid, might have been told when they confessed they did not comprehend the complexities of hydrodynamics, or triangles or geometry and challenged those teachers with opposing viewpoints?

It is fine to be a cynic and always question, although it does not pay well, ask me, I know.

I been buckin' city hall for half a century and my second million was harder than the first.

If you truly wish to comprehend the passage from ignorance to knowledge, you will find the way when it suits you.

If you do not, and wish to continue to be a gadfly, biting the ankles of those who seek knowledge, you will continue to do that, also.

Whatever your choice and course of action, it will not deter my life save the few minutes I waste replying to your posts.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Further consequences: The newborn has no emotions

As indicated in my previous posting, Rand has three levels leading to or constituting human cognition; first there is perception something is there, then perception of objects are continuing (identity).

Looking at the facts, there is some accord with Rand: It is known, for instance that newborns do not have 'object permanency.' Even into the early months, if you cover an object, the baby will assume it has disappeared and make no effort to uncover it.

But, Rand holds, it is at the third level, that a critical human characteristic emerges, a divide is crossed: grasping similarities and differences among objects; basically, being able to deal with an object as a member of a group. The child will want a ball.
(and perhaps try to say the word). There are a number of fairly dissimular objects that fit, if one looks at color, weight, etc. Yet they all have a similarity of 'roll,' as cubes do not.

So let's consider the problem of emotion:

RAND Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him—lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both.

Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses. <vos_31>

But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone's authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly. [end Rand excerpt]

----
P: Remarks: This approach to emotion is highly cognitive; in light of the earlier points I've made, it can be seen that if cognition takes a few months to emerge (i.e., having concepts), then, on Rand's account, so does emotion. 'Cognitive' approaches to emotion have a long history, and indeed current 'cognitive therapy' is based on the idea that our thinking determines our feeling (and thus acting). Rand, of course, does not acknowledge any predecessors in philos.or psych.

Rand seems to be waffling a bit about values, but wants them to be chosen. They flow from 'premises.' This is key to her approach (you're free to choose to live honestly or not).

In this sense, values have to come late, and again, that postpones the advent of emotions, as Rand defines them.
----

Returning to the facts of the matter, we do see (apparent) emotion in babies, and indeed the possibility exists for the almost born. The cry is of distress or fear or pain. Mothers can tell. Rand's example of happiness or joy is particularly ill chosen, in that she must deny them to babies for several months. The contented cooing does not indicate 'emotion.'

Objection: Mightn't Rand say that the baby has an 'implicit premise,' for instance, about, say, "cliffs(drop offs) are dangerous". Hence the baby's crying at a 'visual cliff' is a reflection of holding this premise, and thus being afraid. This does not seem appealing, as the behavior of fetuses too could be analyzed in terms of 'implicit premises.'


What is the problem here. Rand is correct that there is development, in the emotional area. It's indeed true that the baby's emotional range is limited. So what Rand should be saying is that babies have few, simple emotions, but crawlers and toddlers attain *complex* emotions, which depend on cognitions, and emerge well up the road from birth.
A psychologist's example is pride, which possibly does not emerge till around age two.

Conclusion: Rationalism and Voluntarism [exercize of will, choice] are key in Rand's descriptions of adults, at least those she admires. You reason, you choose accordingly. It's 'heroic.' to use her term. But imputing these characteristics to the newborn seems absurd, yet denying them, leads to problems as described, if you've made emotion depend on them.

 

[Rope64]

For all her comments about 'nature,' did Ayn Rand reproduce? If, as I suspect is the case, she did not, did she recognize this as a personal failing in a 'natural' sense?

 

[Pure]

interesting point, rope. note that the pope, another believer in 'Nature's Way' does not reproduce either (though that can't be said of several bishops and many priests!).

i have heard an orthodox jew quote a saying that 'not having children is having blood on your hands.' IOW, not furthering life is equated to serving death. (sounds Randish, doesn't it?)