Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/89

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Location NJ

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) NewJersey
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

19828 profile views
  1. I mean comparatively, it (parents) isn't bigger than other factors, so it's not big, but it matters. (See my first reply to SL). But dead relatives you'll never meet? Their impact on you is not greater on you than a dead non-ancestor.
  2. It's not misconstrual if your position doesn't make sense. It's normal to say "your argument looks like X, is that what you mean?" If X is not your meaning, it usually means you were unclear. Anyway, I still wanna know how you'd respond to Don's questions.
  3. I'm afraid you make no sense about suggesting genealogy has no moral weight yet one may have rational reasons to feel pride in their genealogy, SL (meta point: it seems your premises about morality are at issue here, as Epist is getting at). Or do you mean to say there are values that exist besides life that require no rational reasons? Don asked you questions, feel free to answer those. They are the most pertinent. To your point... No, because each value has to be chosen again. The causal link is culture. There are still many links. This is disagreement, SL. Sometimes it makes little sense why someone disagrees, and it feels like common sense. Of course I'd "evade" your conclusion - because I deny your premise.
  4. " Family and the reality of it CAN have deep personal meaning and value " This IS moral weight. " Also in large part, what you are is by Nurture, who you are, what you think, has been formed and shaped by who they are, what they think and feel. " This too. Who you are is a moral issue. " Objectivism is NOT antithetical to Family or the idea that Family can have and provide special Meaning in one's life. " Special meaning is moral weight. Your posts show that genealogy is part of your concept of family and that genealogy matters to some people. That means some people -should- value their genealogy. But no person at all -should- find meaning in it is my claim. " Consider now a family rich in civility and tradition who provided great educational and philosophical instruction, inspired and demanded of their children high standing and achievement and the pattern repeated generation after generation for a statistically significant offspring " This is not genealogy anyway. Each generation has to establish values anew. You can only observe a continuation based on a person believing the people they know personally and culture. That a great grand parent taught your grandparent taught your parent egoism is not to be judged differently than Rand's great grand parent that perhaps taught egoistic ideas. If someone learned to be a racist and lynch black people, that's on them, and only brought on by accepting their culture, not linked to ancestors qua ancestors. The causative link is no different if there is also a genealogical link. Thus, no special meaning exists. " These to families did not become EXACTLY the same after ONE generation. " Each generation is wildly different than the last. No family will be the same. So we judge people as individuals or their values, with no consideration on lineage. If it does affect who I am, even a little (say, 5% of who I choose to be), if you had particularly admirable ancestors, then I can judge some of your moral worth based on your ancestry. But I say 0%. " It's almost as if you take my sense of family and meaning personally? Does it threaten you somehow? " I think you're wrong is all (weird to ask, I'm practically zen about it).
  5. And I deny that you can establish a causative link. The only link is genes. That's it. It has no bearing on pride, where virtue counts. The link is severed each generation. In other words, a rational person wouldn't feel pride in their ancestry, or even see a special meaning of unchosen family. The degree of nurturing by parents matters as does much else, but parents aren't ancestors. Who your great-grandpa is doesn't matter at all in that process. Anything that makes you who you are is important, and if choice is involved, that subject has moral worth by its nature - your ancestry harms or helps you and requires moral evaluation. "Important" is just to say: "this matters as fundamentally good or bad for me" as opposed to something like "it is important to salt your eggs before eating them". I don't mean it is the same as morally good. "I'm not some rationalist idiot saying all people must find family meaningful... of stating in some terms that some people do and why they do." But you are saying -some- people should, while I say -no one- should. Or you say that family ancestry has moral weight. I'm saying its value on a hierarchy should be low as what color your eyes are for the same reasons. All that you said implies a general importance to genealogy, an importance that has unique standing. Implication doesn't mean intended here.
  6. Rather than clicking report, I'll take this as a knee-jerk response made in haste. " Your parents likewise are to more or less of a degree, by nature and nurture who they are because of their parents. Although there are breaks in the chain of nurture - adoptions, or abandonments, ancestor parents being killed but a child surviving to be raised by others in the village or going back further raised by the pack - the vast majority of the effect of nurture is intact. (certainly one could argue that the injection of a State run school system, and babysitting systems such as radio, TV, and computer games, is an interruption in this process of Nurture... it is a very recent phenomenon, and limited in impact of parents are proactive). This goes backward and on to a multitude of ancestors back to the dawn of life itself. " -your first post here It was not a misquote or a change of what you meant. But you refuse to explain if or how I got your argument wrong. Looks right to me. You are saying the effects of one's genealogy is largely intact, and you are also saying it is morally important (i.e. it has a particular moral weight greater than non-ancestors) to value one's ancestors in a way different than other past people. I've tried to ask questions to discern your position or if I got it wrong - because apparently I got it wrong. All I got is attempts to shame me, telling me no one cares what I have to say, yelling at me, accusations of evasion, telling me to read AS, psychologizing, and more. Everything but a counter-argument.
  7. SL claimed that genealogy has a -morally- important aspect by its very nature (i.e. represents man's survival and your coming to exist, as far as I understand and as far as SL explained). I agree that values may be adopted by an unquestioned osmosis, but that's not at issue. Genealogy has no rational value as to who you have become - unless we're asking about medical history. sNerd, I grasp what you mean, but even the religion one adopts is a cultural thing and less about it being about one's parents. It matters, but not more than teachers or mentors. Besides, that isn't about genealogy, that is, ancestors.
  8. sNerd, by string impact, do you mean that parents instill values in their kids, and those kids instill values in their kids? If so, then I am saying this impact is minimal at best, and past the people you know personally, there is no impact at all (it's one reason 2nd generation kids of immigrants assimilate strongly). Your ancestors are as much a stranger to you as Aristotle. Of your direct family even, their impact doesn't eclipse the rest of society. It's rather amazing that despite needing to learn so much in the world with free will, knowledge and moral cognition doesn't depend on parents much besides physical protection. All a parent can do is provide a healthy and open environment. All this is to point out that people start from scratch. You cannot trace any of -your- virtues to your ancestors just as you can't trace any moral flaws to your ancestors. So one can be proud of learning some virtues from a parent, but learning something from an ancestor is no more special to who you are than being proud to learn some virtues from Rand. They're people you will never meet.
  9. I don't know, that's why I asked you. I can't come up with a rational reason - and merely opening up AS won't reveal a rational reason to me (or do you have specific pages to point me to?). I need arguments. I see no rational reason for Francisco to value his ancestors differently than non-ancestors. They are only different as far as traits that don't matter for moral judgment. Why? Because geneology has no more bearing on the person you voluntarily become than the books you read. Earlier on, you claimed that geneology does have a bearing on the person you become (" Your parents likewise are to more or less of a degree, by nature and nurture who they are because of their parents."). If your premise is true, that means my premise is false. If mine is true, then yours is false.
  10. How is it not just narrower than race? A race and ethnicity only consists of a geneology of multiple families. Is this wrong? I know no one asked if culture is important - I'm saying culture is what matters here and the concept that makes sense for your intention. Rather than saying I'm being sloppy, you should say what I got wrong. It's not a strawman to present an argument that you're wrong despite your intention for your argument to be right. So far, I have not seen counter-arguments about -why- I'm wrong - at least give me quotes of Francisco. My position is that Francisco valued a certain -culture- related to some ancestors, not geneology. Pride in family ancestry makes no sense, rationally speaking. One is not part of that past in any way as far as values. Suppose your ancestor was Andrew Carnegie. How or what about his being your ancestor makes some special value to you? How would his value differ if he wasn't your ancestor?
  11. For some extra ideas from Rand: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture. Tradition has nothing to do with it; tradition is being challenged and blasted daily in a free, civilized society: its citizens accept ideas and products because they are true and/or good—not because they are old nor because their ancestors accepted them. In such a society, concretes change, but what remains immutable—by individual conviction, not by tradition—are those philosophical principles which correspond to reality, i.e., which are true. " http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/culture.html A race or ethnicity is essentially a more generalized geneology, so we can reasonably take this to be about geneology, too. So I bolded what is most important to the thread. Culture is what counts.
  12. He didn't care about ancestry qua ancestry. He cared about opting to be an individualist, and liked that he had to earn his name. Dagny didn't care about ancestry (except for one relative that was admirable anyway), Roark didn't, Rearden didn't. Looking at Francisco, he showed pride in being like a particular group of relatives he chooe to be like. Not because they were -geneological- ancestors of his, but because they were awesome at business. If Francisco did care about geneology as some special value to him, that was his error. The topic is geneology, connections in a family through offspriing, not through virtues. There is no big causal link between one's parents and the person they are and become, though. To see special status of one's blood, even of awesome ancestors, would be to downplay free will, or to ignore that survival of generations is not through survival of the most rational.
  13. Lots of people don't ask questions and go on doing something just because it seems normal and feels right. When in fact ancestry qua ancestry is rather meaningless to a person who is individualistiic; what counts are individuals. Any philosophical inquiry involves asking for reasons. Reason's fan club is a weird way to put it, at least because many people have explained numerous times to you how reason here isn't the Platonic/Kantian/a priori kind.
  14. Which post(s) are you referring to? I mean, it is good to wonder how or if something makes sense.
  15. You said that a lot of who you are is shaped by your parents, then traced that to their parents, and so on to establish a chain of nurture and taught values since the dawn of man. Thus it would be rational because it shows a long line of rational successes in many cases. But your premise is false, your blood family has no -special- effect on you or anyone else. As Nicky said, it's fine to value individual members of your ancestors, as individuals. Their being part of your family tree is irrelevant. Their being part of your (past) in-group is irrelevant. Family to me is more like the chosen variety that Don mentioned. But that's not geneology. Francisco's family, as the D'Anconias, were more chosen than not. He literally had to earn his name and all others before him. For all we know, even non-D'anconia's could become D'Anconias with an honorific or as adopted members. So, good reasons to explore geneology are: curiosity, medical history, legal reasons, and interest in history. Not anything to do with passing along values, because that barely happens except limited to one living generation.