Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4782
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    87

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Eiuol

    Depression

    A good psychologist wouldn't take on the role of some spiritual advisor. Meditation is very important to do for dealing with depression symptoms, but some people then take that step to do a full dive into Buddhism and discover egoless-ness. A good psychologist will give you strategies on how to deal with emotions. It's like hiring a personal trainer for working out. Sometimes you'll get good advice, but other times you might not learn anything new.
  2. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You asked a one line (ish) question, didn't elaborate your position, and didn't mention anything about what you already know. All signs pointed to you knowing very little. The quality of your question affects the quality of the answers you receive.
  3. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    This is completely changing the topic... You didn't ask about how to deal with irrational people. You asked why one should be rational. My first two posts, for two. You responded to one part, but it was more a misunderstanding of what I meant (which is now transformed into a strange literal reading that "Rand didn't care that most people are rational" had to do with contexts besides "why be rational"). You made some strong claims that Rand is a hedonist in metaethical terms, but you still do follow-up to my questions and reasoning as to why she isn't being hedonistic. I have nothing else to add other than this discussion has become pedantic rather than interesting. Your last post or any real effort was to say that the nature of man is to be rational where it suits him. That is, his nature is not to be rational - for if it were his nature, he would be consistently rational. But this is a surface level misunderstanding of Rand. She repeatedly spoke about reason is the means of survival, and that's what she means by the nature of man. If you're getting frustrated with people, it sounds like you are very unsatisfied by an explanation of why reason is the means of survival, but I haven't yet seen in arguments from you to show that Rand failed to justify reason as the means of survival. Instead, I've seen you latching onto how you want people to address that most people don't try to be rational, and no one is trying to answer that. If you think that question is important, you need to prove it, because most people here would think of it as a degree of moral failure rather than evidence against man as the "rational animal". The (attainable) ideal is to be rational, and it is critical to flourishing.
  4. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    I don't know why you interpreted what I wrote as she didn't care about being choosing to be consistently rational. I said she didn't care if the majority of other people are consistently rational. (I don't need to keep saying consistently, because to be a certain trait is to be that trait consistently.) She cared about being rational, she didn't care how many other people are rational, because it doesn't change the nature of man. Maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote, thinking that I meant Rand didn't care about being consistently rational in her moral theory. For one, I elaborated specifically that being rational is the standard to judge right or wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I attribute it to you thinking that when I said "people", you thought I was referring to what all people ought to do. But that's not what I mean. I was referring to the idea that observing how many people are rational doesn't matter. Rand would probably say it doesn't matter if -most- people are rational for determining the means of survival; what matters is the characteristics -all- people have, namely, the capacity of reason. To say man is the rational animal is not to say that all people will always be rational, only that as a general category, man's proper nature is to be rational. It's an ideal and end you must work towards.
  5. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    The discussion is why be rational, so I was saying that there is no "why" or "should" because the answer to that question is just that it's in man's nature, as in its necessary for his flourishing. I have no idea what nukes have to do with that.
  6. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    What does that have to do with choosing to be rational, or man's nature?
  7. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Right, being (consistently) rational is the aim for those who seek to follow their nature. If 1% or 99% of people are (consistently) rational, that doesn't alter man's nature - 100% of people have the capacity to be (consistently) rational. What the majority do is beside the point.
  8. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry I misread it? But still, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not. The quote doesn't say otherwise. EDIT: to clarify, I was responding to how you were talking about if people in general are rational, not individuals
  9. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Why did you add the word only? What point are you trying to make? All that follows from reason being the means of survival.
  10. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry, I was using speech to text software so it didn't come out right. It was supposed to say: "I don't have reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational." She was only concerned if man's means of surviving, of existing, is reason.
  11. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Then address that, because the whole discussion is about what Rand wrote. You brought up a quote of Rand quoting, which isn't too helpful, because it's not her own words. If you have an argument as to why she is a subjectivist ultimately, then presented. All you really sad is that her liking a quote that "sounds" hedonistic suggests that she is giving moral license to all types of behavior. But maybe you should draw out your argument then. Are you trying to say that morality is a metaphysical characteristic of reality, so it is hedonistic to suggest otherwise? Are you trying to say that evaluating the effects or the nature of the entity acting is invalid because morality is just embedded in the fabric of reality? I'm thinking the real issue is that you think a teleological argument is invalid. In that case, it's not that Rand is inconsistent in your eyes, but that you don't think a teleological argument can be consistent. If we think of morality as a characteristic of actions that man takes in relation to his life, then there isn't much to discuss other than how we "pay" for our actions, whether they undermine our ability to flourish. I don't have a reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational. By rational animal, she only means that reason is the means of survival - so we all have a capacity of rationality. If you have an argument as to alternative means of survival, then make that argument. For Rand, there is no other feature to take into account, reason is the only relevant standard for Rand to judge whether an action is right or wrong. Being rational is an attainable ideal, and the "payment"is flourishing and life. Being irrational is possible too, and the "payment" for that is (at best) slowly moving away from flourishing in life. But importantly, she isn't saying that we should be rational because of the consequences. Rationality is the moral standard because it's in our nature, it is our means of survival, and benefits come along with it. EDIT: typos
  12. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You are reading way too deeply into a single quote that is quoting a quote. It is only saying there are consequences to all your actions. Given that it is a religious quote, I see no reason to interpret it as consequentialist or suggesting all is permissible as long as you are willing to pay for it. If you don't like the original quote, fine, maybe she's misreading what it means (she wouldn't be the first philosopher to misunderstand what somebody else said). The only thing relevant to your post is David's response, the quote won't really mean anything until and unless you know pretty well what it is she is summarizing. Generally, there is no -reason- to be rational, to the extent that rationality is the only way to judge what is right or wrong. She makes a teleological argument that man's nature is to be rational and it contributes to his flourishing/life, so right or wrong can only be judged insofar as you act rationally. I don't think this is morally agnostic, just that an important moral principle is to recognize there are moral implications to your life or any action you take.
  13. Eiuol

    A theory of "theory"

    The first thing I thought of is how some cognitive development researchers, in terms of conceptual development, think of concepts as theories about the world. In order to have that theory of development, they need a theory about theories. Their aim isn't so much to say what the correct concepts are, but how children attain their conceptual understanding. The good researchers in this area deal with philosophy a lot, and sometimes it's hard to distinguish them from philosophers. What you write here is in general pretty consistent with that project. The set of highly probable propositions for a subject is the main idea for them I think. Of course, some of them are nativists, but I still think they're on the right track. Your example of why warm-bloodedness as a nonessential property is a point I hadn't considered before. I always thought of nonessentials in terms of simply not explaining the most about the entity, just the opposite of how Rand thought of essentials. So when you say warm-bloodedbess this is basically essential to a supercategory (or subcategory) of the entity we want to understand, this sounds much easier to comprehend. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether you actually distinguish theory from hypothesis. Would you explain that some more?
  14. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    I think this is one of the reasons I like Rand so much. She doesn't always give a lot of detail, which really pushes you to understand for yourself what she means. Some philosophers see this as lazy and not grappling with the issues. I see it as forcing people to engage with words that have long been assumed to be "how things are". When I'm actually in an academic philosophy settings (I have taken at least three graduate-level philosophy courses) I barely bring up Rand because her form of arguments were not built for that setting. I make Objectivist arguments, in terms of the essence of the ideas, but I always find myself needing to "translate" some of it to academia. Consequently, I don't claim that my "translations" are the same as her ideas, although I credit her as an influence. Somewhat related, Nietzsche. Talking about his ideas in academic philosophy is very difficult, especially from his writing style and nonstandard use of terms. It would be wrong to consider him a subjectivist, or against free will. When it comes to the core of her ideas, all we need to say about Rand is that we are free to lead our own lives - and that we aren't "doomed" to the absolute freedom of Sartre where there is no objectively true answer to what we should choose. The debate after that is interesting, but I don't think there is any fan of Rand that denies her observations on free will. The only question to me is how much people want to engage in those finer details.
  15. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    We went over this, sometimes the reason people don't interact is that maybe they don't like interacting with you. There was no question left for 2046 to respond to except yours. It isn't a personal attack to say that some people don't like talking to you. I have offered arguments, but without arguing against them, the response was that "I still didn't get it". So that was the end of the discussion. I wrote a personal criticism, not an attack.
  16. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    IEP and SEP are nice sources. But unless any of us have a PhD in philosophy, or a Masters degree, we can't treat these as the be all and all source. I don't think it would make sense to present an argument about Rand's position based on the meanings implied and agreed upon in modern philosophy, that's not where her thinking stems from. We can point to Nietzsche, and Russian philosophers when she was in college, and Aristotle for her influences, and how she then formed a philosophy. What is implied and discussed in the free will debate isn't really about the things she said were important. So, I think you're trying to fit Rand into a modern philosophy category when basically anything she did was against the grain and controversial. This is part of why I said determinism is a distinction we should abandon. Because I think Rand is correct and not building on modern philosophy, the traditional definitions within this debate just don't cut it. I think that Rand is closer to compatibilism than not, but she still isn't. If this is confusing, it's only because there is no view like hers. When we introduce terms like determinism or compatibilism or the libertarian notion of free will, then we would only mislead people more. I don't think so either, I was introducing a distinction to help the discussion. I was trying to frame things with terminology you prefer. Otherwise, we'd be talking past each other. I'm making the more controversial claim here, the onus is on me to clarify my thoughts. If you want, cite a specific philosopher that you think Rand is most like with regard to free will and is active within academic philosophy. I'm open to being wrong, but that's really the only kind of evidence that would change my mind much right now. I want something more than SEP or IEP. Or as I said, people don't like to interact with you. I mean, I think it is clear that we want to get the view right, and we have no qualms about saying when we do in fact disagree with Rand. There's no need to argue about who "really" understands. You have some peculiar ideas about free will that I don't think make any sense (not what you're saying here, things you said about indeterminism actually), but I don't see this as any sign of evasion.
  17. Eiuol

    Race Realism

    it's not that there is disregard, but that the alleged differences are either based on bad science, or the differences aren't substantial enough to result in behavioral differences that are relevant to modern society. Of course there is variation among individuals, but it's not egalitarian to say those differences aren't as substantial as you think. Egalitarianism would be calling for the equalization of everyone in that we can literally be anything we want to be. That's wrong not the correct view. Some people are better at what they do than others, and that's okay. That doesn't justify using questionable science to come up with explanations for individual differences. IQ has issues, mostly because intelligence is so complicated that no single measure really works.
  18. Eiuol

    Race Realism

    Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and many more have traversed most of Asia. IQ is not a measure of rationality, it is a measure of a factor of intelligence in the context of fluid intelligence. As far as rationality is concerned, we would still want to measure grit, creativity, spatial intelligence, memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, and many other things that contribute to cognitive ability. I should also mention that there are issues even measuring in the first place for people not raised in Western countries. Not because those who brought up in non-Western countries are inherently stupider, but the tasks aren't really developed for those contexts. in other words, without the support of Western-style education, those in Africa might not do well on IQ tests.
  19. Eiuol

    Race Realism

    I don't know why the continent itself is the dividing line. Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Indian people are all in the same continent, and they aren't called Asian except in a literal descriptive sense. I don't think anyone is arguing against genetic variation, the main issue is what constitutes a race and how big an effect those differences are in the first place. We may and do find significant statistical differences in IQ among populations, but that isn't to say the difference is even enough that different races (assuming we can even define race properly) will demonstrate different behavioral outcomes. Which controversial events? I'm not even sure your posts are serious now. This would be easy to look up, and China is part of the scientific community too...
  20. Eiuol

    Veganism under Objectivism

    The reason VO gave is that as omnivores we don't need to eat meat, but lions as carnivores need to.
  21. Eiuol

    Veganism under Objectivism

    To add one last thing. Babies are human and have a capacity to use reason that will fully develop. Animals can't and don't fully develop it at any point or ever.
  22. Eiuol

    Veganism under Objectivism

    The quote says they have some abstract thinking ability. This does not mean that they have a conceptual ability. Having knowledge is not the same as having concepts. Animals are still far below the complexity of conceptual thought, in such a way that no one has observed conceptual thought in them (except for a few animals). Abstraction in the sense of a dog understanding that it can be sneaky if the owner isn't looking is real, and perhaps some associating of memories. But inducing language, or that there is purpose for them to understand, or think ahead a year... All sorts definite indications of reason are missing. All of it can be tested, too. I'm not arguing about sentience. Most animals are sentient. The point is that animals don't reason, therefore rights don't apply. Sentience is a broader category. Ravens are perhaps the smartest birds of all, perhaps you could make a case to not eat them. No one really eats them anyway. Chickens and turkeys though, there is no sign of them using reason. Same goes for dogs, or fish.
  23. Use the report function. Rudeness per se isn't a violation, and it's not clear cut when posts are merely "not nice". But reporting helps. The most egregious ones are removed quickly, though.
  24. Eiuol

    Veganism under Objectivism

    But you don't need to speak their language to persuade them. For a python though, there is nothing to do our gesture or anything else to a python for it to understand you. The wider disagreement I think is that you are using the word differently than most of us here. You seem to say reason is any means of thinking. So of course any sentient being would be a reasoning being by this standard, and meat would be murder. You also mentioned knowledge, that having knowledge is an indication of possessing reason. But when we say knowledge in the concetual sense, this is different than knowledge in a basic sense of noticing and awareness. So you've combined these both to say any kind of knowledge is an indication of reason. Objectivism understands reason to be the ability to form knowledge in the rich conceptual sense, to form concepts, to consider one's life in the long-term, and all these rich ways of thinking. The essential factor is conceptual thought. Elephants and dolphins might be at this level, but that's it besides humans. Not cows, not dogs, not Koko. Sure, these animals are quite intelligent and people are surprised all the time at their abilities. Yet there is no scientist I am aware of that says any animal can think with full-fledged concepts. Koko was not able to learn in this sense, nor was her learning going on in a way that showed any full comprehension of words. Apes like Koko are great at learning to communicate even with humans, but doesn't mean they need -reason- to survive and exist.
  25. Eiuol

    Donald Trump

    It seems to me that Musk was pointing out that Trump hasn't shown any reflection on US-China trade relations. It's obvious that China is far from a free market yet Trump is wishy-washy about foreign policy. It makes me think that a tariff may make sense for Chinese products - but not to other countries. As far as I see, Trump is far from a force of change in foreign policy. He is seen is weak and laughable (and hardly threatening), he has no ideas to leverage other than hope China will provide a better deal. It's not like it'd be hard to release a list of key points of China as a poor trade partner or some other sign that there is a plan. Intuition is not enough. I know that Trump wouldn't respond to the tweet (and that Musk can't even become president legally, if you took me literally), but I expect more from him. It seems though you missed all the past work Trump has done pre-presidency to show that he isn't a wheeler-dealer, as in the deals he gets in real estate are due to shady manipulations. It's questionable that he can attain any deals that are all around good. He hasn't done so in foreign policy yet, despite all the reasons to get going on it.
×