Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Posts

    5525
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    235

Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. Let's take a couple who have found in one another their "psychological mirror" via their respective highest values and have concluded and acted upon that conclusion to bring (a) child(ren) into existence and rear them together. This would augment the "nuclear family" by putting the qualification of individuals committed to achieving their values in life, included an additional mutually shared value of taking on the responsibility of rearing a child, rather than just a man and a women and child(ren).
  2. To identify words as just monikers is, in essence, a form of nominalism. Objectivism holds that words need precision to serve their purpose. While family does have different contexts to it, the thread on Objectivism and Procreation was dealing with the issues surrounding Objectivism and children, the choice to have and rear them or not, which would subsume how to structure the interpersonal relationship under that given choice. Also noted in the alternatives you provided - do you not consider a husband and wife a family? If they have chosen not to have children - do they not still face the challenge of how to structure their inter-personal relationships as well? You might keep in mind that Objectivism is a general guide, sort of a one-size fits all, rather than an attempt to micro-manage the myriad of interdependent choices that arise in various concrete situations. It identifies what a value is in the broadest context possible. It does not try to identify what all the specific concrete values could/should/ought be.
  3. The "copy of an ancient document" Judge Narragansett was editing was the Constitution of the United States
  4. Just off the cuff, I'd be more inclined to believe that human beings took the observations of elephants and chimpanzees and ritualized our human ceremonies associated with death.
  5. I only intended to question the idea that human nature has not changed significantly over the millenia. I don't understand how human nature would change period. Looking back at your opening post, I wonder what it added to the previous two sentences, that is, why it was included.
  6. Wherein lies the crux of one of the differences between how you versus many of us here think. I don't want to derail your topic to this however, I'm just merely highlighting an observation that appears to be present through some of your commentaries thus far.
  7. Isn't the reason we call it human nature because we are identifying the nature or unchanging aspects of the human being?
  8. Actinobacteria as the Base of the Evolutionary Tree Duax and his team have developed efficient ways to search through the gene banks looking for all copies of the same family of protein. They concentrated their efforts on proteins that are found on the surface of cell components called ribosomes. The ribosomal proteins are among the most accurately identified proteins, and because they are not transferred between individuals independent of reproduction, are good candidates for tracing the evolution of all species.
  9. In reconsideration of the question, animals who lack Objectivist, or more broadly the human tool of cognition, the answer to how one evaluates animal behavior has to be taken with an understanding of how do animals behave. The short answer is by instinct. When we observe non-human behavior, there is a tendency for some to project human-like qualities on what they observe. When an elephant or chimpanzee covers its dead with leaves or branches, human beings ask "Why do they do that?" If they do not differentiate between volitional and non-volitional action, could an erroneous answer emerge and be lent credence by others who have the same or similar implicit or unchecked premises embedded in their evaluation processes?
  10. I'm not claiming that an emotion like reverence is icing on the cake, nor that they can be separated. Emotional responses are analogous to pain/pleasure responses of touching something hot, or sharp as opposed to warm or soft. Emotions, however, rely on previously accepted ideas. Some people consider Christ on a crucifix very meaningful and take joy/reverence/love in observing it, for what they have over their lives made it mean to them. I can look at the same image and simply see a corpse, am familiar with the teachings that stand behind it and consequently feel revoltion for the deeper ideas I understand it to represent. Two different emotional responsese - same stimulus. What is different? The ideas that the emotions spring from. The moral ideal one selects is dependent on the standard of value one holds (implicitly or explicitly) as the root of the ethical premises. This is why you consider a stoic a moral ideal in this example - where I would choose a Thomas Paine, Issac Newton and Aristotle as role models for abstracting moral ideas from. I don't.
  11. Isolating the quote again from Ayn Rand, "It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal." referring to the actual emotions that such concepts as "reverence", "sacred", "holy", etc., refer to and re-paraphrasing the question "Is there a positive reason or need, if you will, for reverence?" let me meander for a bit here to try and tie a sequence of thoughts together. Miss. Rand points out that the question at the root of ethics is "Does man need a code of ethics?" and if so, "Why." The answer given is "Yes." for without code of morality, man would die, setting the stage for man's life as the standard of value. Emotions are a response, a reaction, a consequence, if you will. They can provide an analytical tool for evaluating ones thinking. I'm probably dropping many steps here, but with man having a need for code of morality, and the emotional mechanism providing feedback to assist in the evaluation of what we are confronted with at any given moment in time - reverence would not be a need as such but an emotional reward to encountering some aspect of the moral ideal. A moral code being necessary leads to the development of a moral code which is either based in reason or is not. Regardless - the aspects of the code that are put on the pedestal as ideal, and accepted as one's sense of life is going to trigger the emotional response when it is encountered in some way, shape or form. If we consider the emotions as a tool of cognition, or give it primacy over reason, it could seem as though reverence is indeed necessary to the well-being of a human being. If we put it in it's proper place, the aspect that is necessary to the well-being of a human being, that is a moral code built on reason, properly cultivated should provide the emotion of reverence under the proper circumstances.
  12. I really don't view reverence as a destination. It is an emotional response that coincides with a mental understanding of what I happen to be revering. <edit>I would add, what would be considered rational/irrational would be the mental understanding.</edit> A rational observer with a knowledge of martial arts would know that the kneeling before and after the class is merely how the class begins and ends. A keen rational observer might recognize the reverence held for the instructor by engaging in conversation with (a) student(s) who hold(s) that reverence.
  13. Looking into this a little more, from The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution:The Chickens' Homecoming But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition. It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal. The challenge is reducing this down to the perceptual level where each concept is validated. In Galt's speech, and excerpted in Philosophy: Who Needs It?, nearly three pages are dedicated to providing a presentation of what rational ethics has to offer only touching base with moral ideals in: "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose." It is more like of a summation what lies at the root of reverence for one's self.
  14. One senses something in reality. Via a process of differentiation and integration - one identifies it. In the case of a cat or a dog, the meaning of the concept is the referent in reality. The purpose comes much later when one desires one for a pet. As to reverence, if I want to understand it, what am I differentiating it from? What aspects of my observations am I integrating to isolate from the rest of reality as reverence? How does this differ from the religious teaching that it is an "emotion of a sacred respect to be experienced on one's knees"? (Introduction to the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead) I held special reverence for my martial arts instructor. The man had gone through physically more than I was willing to put myself through. He earned that respect, awe, and admiration that I and many of my fellow students who had 'tasted' a small portion of what he must have gone through to become what he had. Although, I must admit, we did open and close class in traditional Japanese kneeling position. (spelling)
  15. Your religious agenda is really starting to reveal itself. Go back in history and search for the reverence for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness prior to the Magna Carta. Ciciro laid some groundwork when he make the case for self-defense. (corrected) Meaning apart from a conceptual consciousness is meaningless. Objectivism just identifies it in explicit terms.
  16. Before man can form the concept of reverence, yes, he must have discovered something that was different from all of the other concepts he had and integrate it into a new unit to retain it.
  17. I don't think I would have said what I did had I not.
  18. Given how much concern is expressed by the few (news, parts of the scientific community, organizations such a greenpeace) that man is somehow destroying the environment, where is the genereal sweeping sense of reverence within that? Even so, isn't reverence an emotional response evoked within an individual? As an emotional response (response being the key word here), it is an automated aspect of human beings brought about by processing the data of the senses filtered through ones sense of life. As such, I would not consider reverence as a primary. I do not have a particular sense of reverence toward existence as such. Reverence toward something which has not earned it, seems to cheapen the meaning it could ultimately hold in ones person.
  19. Probably not. But you are identifying that it is an evocation of a feeling of reverence.
  20. An interchange between Andrei and Kira from We The Living, pg 107 "Do you believe in God, Andrei?" "No." "Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know." "What do you mean?" "Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do—then, I know they don't believe in life." "Why?" "Because, you see, God—whatever anyone chooses to call God—is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."
  21. Is it necessary to debunk that 2+2≠1, 2+2≠2, 2+2≠3, 2+2≠5, 2+2≠6 etc learn that 2+2=4? If you want to be confident in your arguments, identify the principles that make for sound argument. Thrash out something simple like "There are no absolutes." Recognize that "There are no absolutes." is posited as an absolute. When you realize that "There are no absolutes." is false, you can embrace the fact that "There are absolutes." Once you identify what 'absolutes', 'certainty', 'truth' are, it's like understanding 2+2=4. Any other answer is false, because you know what the answer is. This is really oversimplified. As the issues become more complex, the number of interrelated issues increase, and while error is possible at any step along the way, learning how to identify error goes a long way to developing your confidence of knowing what you know, by knowing how you know it.
  22. And if they should die before eternity is up, then what? Justice wasn't served?
  23. Since you already recognize his rhetoric contains fallacies, it would appear that you have already refuted it for yourself.
  24. Objectivism emphasizes the rational part and ignores the emotional? I would actually use this as part of a validation of what CptnChan asserted, were I so inclined. Of the 60+ references I can find that state "human nature" specifically, most point out the contradictions that other ideologies embrace or endorse as human nature. One reference by Leonard Peikoff in the Introduction to The Letters of Ayn Rand, In 1934, she wrote a letter to thank an actor she did not know, whose performance onstage "gave me, for a few hours, a spark of what man could be, but isn't .... The word heroic does not quite express what I mean. You see, I am an atheist and I have only one religion: the sublime in human nature. Or in her words: "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence." Fundamental nature of what? Man? In this sense, what makes human nature good is the human being (volitional by nature) who chooses to be of a good nature. Ironically, the example of anorexia you use is the one Peikoff used to highlight the metaphysically given as against the man-made. The fact that man's life requires food is metaphysically given; the fact that some men, such as ascetics or anorectics, prefer to starve is man-made.
  25. To the extent we live in a society of "live and let live", this would be the equivalent of "Yes, you do have the right to be mistaken." and I would agree. Speaking of "out of curiosity", can there be a trial of ideas without considering the motivations? Isn't asking a question like: "What is the source of this kind of curiosity?" an inquiry to the motivating power that underlies curiosity?
×
×
  • Create New...