Genetics, Environment and luck. What else?

[stump]

It seems you are what you are and you do what you do because of genetics, environment and luck. Neither which is thanks to you. What else is there? How does one get around this in Objectivism? How do you deal with it and what are your conclusions? Is there such a thing as pride, knowing that whatever you did, you did because of you being you and you being you is not because of you.

Discuss.

[Greebo]

You have given nothing to discuss.

[softwareNerd]

It seems you are what you are and you do what you do because of genetics, environment and luck. Neither which is thanks to you. What else is there?

To clarify, do you mean to say that you are making this claim merely because certain genetics/environmental factors impinged in a way that caused you to make it? If so, then isn't it true that anyone who agrees or disagrees also does so because of the genetics/environment that makes him agree or disagree? If so, isn't discussion futile?

On the other hand, if you made the claim because of some factor other than your own genetics, environment (or luck), then what is that factor? If you have at least some inkling of that factor (other than those three) that caused you to make your claim, then you have an inkling about the answer to your question: "what else is there"?

[stump]

Whether someone agree or disagree seems to me have little value, rather someone elses opinion and thoughts have. And since I don't know by forehand where this discussion may lead, I don't see it as futile.

[softwareNerd]

Whether someone agree or disagree seems to me have little value, rather someone elses opinion and thoughts have. And since I don't know by forehand where this discussion may lead, I don't see it as futile.

If someone else's opinions are fully caused by the environment, why listen to them? Is there really any value in doing so?

[Grames]

It seems you are what you are and you do what you do because of genetics, environment and luck. Neither which is thanks to you. What else is there? How does one get around this in Objectivism? How do you deal with it and what are your conclusions? Is there such a thing as pride, knowing that whatever you did, you did because of you being you and you being you is not because of you.

Discuss.

The name for what you want to discuss is determinism.

How do you reject Physics Determinism?

[stump]

If someone else's opinions are fully caused by the environment, why listen to them? Is there really any value in doing so?

Absolutelty. A musician for example, isn't he 'caused' by his environment? His musical heritage? His upbringing in a musical family? His parents choice of letting him play the piano at 4? Surely most musicians don't choose that road outta the blue in their adult age. And surely there's value in music, regardless of cause.

[freestyle]

What else?

Free will. Consciousness.

[softwareNerd]

And surely there's value in music, regardless of cause.

However, discussion assumes that you have some means of changing what you think, and that this is at least a little bit under your control. Else, even if someone says something that makes you change your mind, it is of little value since it is not caused by any evaluation of right and wrong, but merely by your environment. Presumably, your environment may make you love music that I hate, so we can both try a whole lot of music until we find something we each like. We can do the same for discussion, to find an argument we each like, but to what end? is the idea to walk away with a comfort of having found some "truth" even though we know that there is none? Edited October 8, 2010 by softwareNerd

[stump]

Is this topic something that Ayn Rand discuss in great detail in any of her books, if so which ones? I've read very little about it, stuff like "you choose to think or not to think" but it seems thats not a good enough answer, what causes one to think or not to think? why would someone choose not to think, if its in general benefical? (unless someone who does is considered stupid, well thats genetic too) if you're doing a test in school, you choose to think, everyone does, doesnt really matter for the result of the test though... without the brains, learning memory (also genetic) etc you still wont make it no matter how 'hard' you 'choose to think'. and then we're back at square one... genetics. environment. luck.

[stump]

However, discussion assumes that you have some means of changing what you think, and that this is at least a little bit under your control. Else, even if someone says something that makes you change your mind, it is of little value since it is not caused by any evaluation of right and wrong, but merely by your environment. Presumably, your environment may make you love music that I hate, so we can both try a whole lot of music until we find something we each like. We can do the same for discussion, to find an argument we each like, but to what end? is the idea to walk away with a comfort of having found some "truth" even though we know that there is none?

Maybe you sit on the truth and I dont? Maybe you can enlighten me, or maybe its the other way around. I don't know. Maybe I don't get it (and this is probably genetic, or can i choose to get it or not to get it?)

I dont know what causes my opinion to be my opinion or whether i have a say in that. Do someone choose to be an objectivist for example?

[Jake_Ellison]

Maybe you sit on the truth and I dont? Maybe you can enlighten me, or maybe its the other way around. I don't know. Maybe I don't get it (and this is probably genetic, or can i choose to get it or not to get it?)

I dont know what causes my opinion to be my opinion or whether i have a say in that. Do someone choose to be an objectivist for example?

You can't directly choose Objectivism, but you can choose to understand and evaluate it (you can do that by choosing to read Atlas Shrugged for instance, and by choosing to pay attention to what you are reading).

Obviously, before all that, you must choose to read my post, and you must choose to pay attention to what you are reading as well. Then, you will have understood what I just told you (not because I caused you to understand, but because you chose to understand). Or, you could choose to frustrate me in my efforts and not choose to understand what I just told you. The existence of those two plausible outcomes are enough to prove that indeed I do not have the power to cause you to understand anything, you have a choice in the matter.

[whYNOT]

I dont know what causes my opinion to be my opinion or whether i have a say in that.

Why not? I'm not insisting that genetics, etc, do not play a part in one's life, but you'll find that they can get less and less influential as you get older, until they mean next to nothing.

What'll you have then? Who will you be?

How can you stand it? Not having a say in it.

(Jake, that's a lot of times you used "choose" in your post; are you trying to say something?)

[Eiuol]

Is this topic something that Ayn Rand discuss in great detail in any of her books, if so which ones? I've read very little about it, stuff like "you choose to think or not to think" but it seems thats not a good enough answer, what causes one to think or not to think?

Nothing exactly "causes" you to think, thinking is self-initiated. Why you choose to think in the first place is related to choosing life as a value. I would say both choices are made basically simultaneously. Consider that a sensation of pain is something people avoid, while pain is something people avoid. This is also true of animals, of course. However, since all humans are conceptual creatures, thinking is required in order to act at all, meaning that in order to avoid pain and seek any kind of sensation of pleasure, you must choose to think. Thinking doesn't "just happen."

I would recommend reading Objectivist Ethics, which is in Virtue of Selfishness. Look up "pleasure" or "pain."

Edited October 9, 2010 by Eiuol

[Regi F.]

Is this topic something that Ayn Rand discuss in great detail in any of her books ...?

No, she did not write a great deal, but she definitely addressed the issue explicitly, and unambiguously.

Ayn Rand used "material" synonymously with "physical." Here are some quotes to consider:

"Man is an entity of mind and body, an indivisible union of two elements: of consciousness and matter. Matter is that which one perceives, consciousness is that which perceives it." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "14 - Notes While Writing Galt's Speech"]

Notice the two elements are consciousness and matter, meant to identify two unique things. But she is more explicit here:

"Man's consciousness is not material——but neither is it an element opposed to matter." [The Journals of Ayn Rand, "13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952"] [Emphasis mine.]

And here:

"Man is a being endowed with consciousness —an attribute which matter does not possess. His consciousness is the free, nonmaterial element in him." [The Letters of Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)," To Nathan Blumenthal, January 13, 1950] [Emphasis mine.]

There is no hint of either dualism or mysticism in Rand's view. She regarded consciousness as part of nature, part of the objective metaphysical world, but not a physical or "material" part of it. This is, in fact, my own view, except that I regard three aspects of reality non-physical&mdash.life, consciousness, and the human mind (volition, rationality, and intellect), because none of these can be explained in terms of physical attributes, though none can exist independently of the physical organisms of which they are the life, consciousness, or minds.

I wonder if you know who Nathan Blumenthal is. He was married to Barbara Weidman.

[stump]

Did Ayn Rand have free will? And if so did she put it to use?

Ayn Rand's ability to write and to think must be a combination of genetics and environment. No matter how much we 'will' something we cannot write as good as Ayn Rand, we don't share her environment and experiences and we lack the skill of writing and her imagination.

Then she was lucky to be able to come to the US and become a citizen there (a luck most people in the world does not have, so even if there's far greater writers in the world than Rand, they cannot write and get published because where they are geographically)

When it comes to Rand it was genetics (her ability to write and think), environment (upbringing, living in Soviet union that shaped her thoughts) and luck (her chance to come to the US)

The question is then, can she be praised for anything? Anything at all?

Edited October 18, 2010 by stump

[Regi F.]

Did Ayn Rand have free will? And if so did she put it to use?

Yes. Yes.

Ayn Rand's ability to write and to think must be a combination of genetics and environment.

You know this how?

If everything you do, including everything you think is determined by genetics and environment, than everything you think you know is only what your genetics and environment have caused you to think, even to believing you know something.

Now you have convinced me this is the case. I really do believe everything you think and do is determined by your genetics and environment. It even makes you think this is true of everyone else as well. It isn't, but of course you will never know that, because you do not have consciousness. You may even think you have, but it is only an illusion caused by your genetics and environment. It's a very sad thing. I've run into cases like this before, but I certainly don't blame you, because you cannot help it.

[stump]

So how did Ayn Rand put her free will to use? If you really have a passion for something, say writing, then it really doesnt come down to a decision does it, you just do what you enjoy because, well you enjoy doing it.

And that passion isn't something you figure out, it's something you either have or dont have. Same as imagination, skill for writing etc.

[Eiuol]

When it comes to Rand it was genetics (her ability to write and think), environment (upbringing, living in Soviet union that shaped her thoughts) and luck (her chance to come to the US)

Even people with high IQ can be "stupid". I do wonder if IQ is a valid measure of intelligence anyway. A big part of one's ability to think is *how* one thinks. Unfortunately, a poor education may be harmful to a developing child if instructors teach thinking methods that are ultimately harmful. Also, Rand's ability to write wasn't just natural, it was something she practiced with ALL her life. I recall Rand mentioning that she wanted to be a writer since she was 6 years old, so that gives a lot of time to practice. Writing was definitely a choice. Rand's environnment was certainly influential, but of the many people in the Soviet Union in similar conditions as her, she was the only person to come up with her particular thoughts. I don't think coming to the US was luck as much as it was taking advantage of something to allow her to escape. I'm sure Rand would've escaped no matter what, but there's of course no way to prove that.

No, no one can simply "will" themselves to be good and it magically happens. It takes time and practice. Ability is a culmination of choices in how to spend one's time (There's a book by Malcolm Gladwell - Outliers - that talks about how time spent on a particular skill is a huge part of ability). Imagination, too, can be cultivated. Of course, no one will write exactly like Rand, because she is an individual with her own uniqueness in values and experiences, but anyone can *eventually* become as high quality of a writer as Rand. Also, if you have a passion for something, that just makes it easier to decide to pursue that passion. Plenty of people don't pursue a passion because work will be too difficult, or too difficult to make a living off of. So no, people don't always end up doing what they enjoy because they enjoy it. Some choose otherwise.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Eiuol

[JayR]

Im amazed at the patience some people show in dealing with rationalized nonsense, but maybe thats just due to genetic factors.

Look at reality. Is it not obvious that you make choices all the time? Existential factors that lead to those choices are non essential. Making an arbitrary assertion, and then trying to "prove" it by asking silly rhetorical questions is not a means to knowledge. Look at reality. Ethics as a field of study may as well not even exist if any of what you posit is true.

[TheEgoist]

Im amazed at the patience some people show in dealing with rationalized nonsense, but maybe thats just due to genetic factors.

Look at reality. Is it not obvious that you make choices all the time? Existential factors that lead to those choices are non essential. Making an arbitrary assertion, and then trying to "prove" it by asking silly rhetorical questions is not a means to knowledge. Look at reality. Ethics as a field of study may as well not even exist if any of what you posit is true.

A mere appeal to appearances does no good. Reality is often not as it appears to perceivers.

[JayR]

A mere appeal to appearances does no good. Reality is often not as it appears to perceivers.

So looking at reality is not a valid means of gaining knowledge? Or perhaps its valid but not sufficient? Ok, so Id suggest doing that along with introspection, and some heavy review of the nature of axiomatic concepts.

[stump]

she wanted to be a writer since she was 6 years old, so that gives a lot of time to practice. Writing was definitely a choice.

Yes but before she started to write, she started to want. And if you want something hard enough is there really much choice? Don't you just do everything you can to make it happen?

And yes, talent isnt enough. A lot of time it requires practice, but can't the willingness to practice also be explained by genetics? That some just are hard working and patient by nature and others are not?

[Dante]

So how did Ayn Rand put her free will to use? If you really have a passion for something, say writing, then it really doesnt come down to a decision does it, you just do what you enjoy because, well you enjoy doing it.

You might cite that passion as the "reason" that you chose to write, but to talk like that in a philosophical argument about free will is simply to use language to obscure important points.

In a decision like that, the immediate cause of the person's actions was their choice to succumb to their passions. We see evidence all the time, in our own lives as well as by observing the lives of others, that people are not simply "slaves to their passions." Passions make it easier or harder to take a particular path, but they cannot make it truly impossible or certain.

[whYNOT]

Dante,

Don't knock 'passion'. No, I know you aren't , but you know how motivating it can be.

I'm starting to view passion as the yet unformed rational values of a young and questing mind.

When the values find form and outlet, that's a powerful force.

No ordinary emotion this; rather an effect of all that inductive thinking that began in childhood.