Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
philosopher

3 Kinds of mind

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

To be honest, it's quite confusing about the rational mind one. Assuming you made that, it seems like what you want to show visually different methods of figuring out what is true, and methods for figuring out what is good. If it is to make any visual sense, all three should parallel each other. For instance, rational mind consist of: self -> logic -> the true; life as the standard -> values -> the good. In other words, to make it clever and useful, you should limit your points to use. Be careful not to give the impression of intrinsic value as being part of a rational mindset.

Also, "existence chosen" is not really accurate. I think what you're going after in saying that is that one has to choose to acknowledge that existence is objective and not dependent upon anyone's consciousness.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it's quite confusing about the rational mind one. Assuming you made that, it seems like what you want to show visually different methods of figuring out what is true, and methods for figuring out what is good. If it is to make any visual sense, all three should parallel each other. For instance, rational mind consist of: self -> logic -> the true; life as the standard -> values -> the good. In other words, to make it clever and useful, you should limit your points to use. Be careful not to give the impression of intrinsic value as being part of a rational mindset.

This is a good point. One layout I tried had some of the religious and socialist ones skipping levels so they better lined up with their equivalent in the rational mind, but just reducing the rational mind to the same size is probably a better idea. Diagrams should show essentials.

Also, "existence chosen" is not really accurate. I think what you're going after in saying that is that one has to choose to acknowledge that existence is objective and not dependent upon anyone's consciousness.

What I was going for with "existence chosen" was the choice to live/remain in existence which makes values possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems odd to use Rational, Religious, and Socialist. The first two refer to metaphysics and epistemology and source of ethical value (as it seems to intended to sketch out in the boxes that follow underneath), the third to a political doctrine. Perhaps Rational, Religious, Subjective ...or Objective, Intrinsic, and Subjective might fit better? Just an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your characterizations of the essentials of the religious mind and the socialist mind are oversimplified and therefore inaccurate. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this tree format thing, but the format doesn't allow for the level of accuracy needed to make any sort of valid point about this topic.

Also, I would characterize the three as different ways of thinking rather than different types of minds. I don't think anyone has a mind that can be completely characterized as religious or socialist, as you've presented those characterizations here. For example, most religious people I know have the same rational "type of mind" as everyone else when addressing day-to-day issues and most scientific topics, they just appeal to faith and divine revelation for certain topics. No one could really function in the world if they relied completely on what you call the religious type of mind. I think people switch to different methods of thinking at certain topics, rather than have different "types of minds."

Edited by Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is best not to confuse philosophical and political mindsets, because a subjectivist might define the good by opinion poll, but socialists have very definite ideas about what constitutes the good and can be very hostile when their ideas are rejected by the public. You only have to look to the UK at the moment, or Wisconsin, where the democratically elected government is trying to implement policies in the face of massive opposition from the Left. A socialist would most probably fit best within the religious category if you were to change 'clergy' to something else that encompassed liberal opinion formers and religious clergy and the Bible to 'received wisdom'

Edited by rebelconservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are basically strawmanning most socialists.

There are a ton of socialists who reject utilitarianism for one. They see it as just another justification for inequality produced by the upper classes. For instance Herbert Spencer promoted a brand of utilitarianism.

It is also very debatable whether or not it is a key tenet of socialism to derive the truth of something by polling. If you look at the works of Orwell, you will see that while yes, Totalitarians do in fact believe in post-modernism, Orwell, a socialist himself, did believe in the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems odd to use Rational, Religious, and Socialist. The first two refer to metaphysics and epistemology and source of ethical value (as it seems to intended to sketch out in the boxes that follow underneath), the third to a political doctrine. Perhaps Rational, Religious, Subjective ...or Objective, Intrinsic, and Subjective might fit better? Just an observation.

Yes, that occurred to me too, I was thinking of using "rational" vs "evader" but I want this to be something a layman will understand so tried to use religious and socialist even though they are from different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your characterizations of the essentials of the religious mind and the socialist mind are oversimplified and therefore inaccurate. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish with this tree format thing, but the format doesn't allow for the level of accuracy needed to make any sort of valid point about this topic.

I think in most arguments people take one of those 3 positions, and it's meant to point out to them that in fact they are not being rational when they take one of the later two. Because socialists in particular seem to think they are the rational ones. And as you say below, religious people often don't see the clash between reason and religion, because they compartmentalise their thinking.

Also, I would characterize the three as different ways of thinking rather than different types of minds. I don't think anyone has a mind that can be completely characterized as religious or socialist, as you've presented those characterizations here. For example, most religious people I know have the same rational "type of mind" as everyone else when addressing day-to-day issues and most scientific topics, they just appeal to faith and divine revelation for certain topics. No one could really function in the world if they relied completely on what you call the religious type of mind. I think people switch to different methods of thinking at certain topics, rather than have different "types of minds."

Yes, they are different kinds of thinking, no mind has an intrinsic method. But it is colloquially acceptable (if a little poetic) to refer to "the socialist mind" or "the rational mind." I would agree that religious people today are indeed very rational on many topics, but it doesn't hurt to point out the origin of their system, because I suspect back when people were less educated, the graph I drew (clergy, 10 commandments) would indeed have not been far from the truth. The fact that they are mixed these days comes purely from the encroachment of reason on religion and I think it many ways religion underneath is still that basic "handed down knowledge" approach and just tries to hide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is best not to confuse philosophical and political mindsets, because a subjectivist might define the good by opinion poll, but socialists have very definite ideas about what constitutes the good and can be very hostile when their ideas are rejected by the public. You only have to look to the UK at the moment, or Wisconsin, where the democratically elected government is trying to implement policies in the face of massive opposition from the Left. A socialist would most probably fit best within the religious category if you were to change 'clergy' to something else that encompassed liberal opinion formers and religious clergy and the Bible to 'received wisdom'

I love your idea that the socialists have an equivalent of the clergy. Perhaps the universities/colleges? That is a massive improvement in the diagram in terms of opening people's eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are basically strawmanning most socialists.

There are a ton of socialists who reject utilitarianism for one. They see it as just another justification for inequality produced by the upper classes. For instance Herbert Spencer promoted a brand of utilitarianism.

It is also very debatable whether or not it is a key tenet of socialism to derive the truth of something by polling. If you look at the works of Orwell, you will see that while yes, Totalitarians do in fact believe in post-modernism, Orwell, a socialist himself, did believe in the truth.

Ayn Rand herself said socialists were using a circular definition of "the good" by defining the good as "the good for the greatest number," I almost drew a little arrow looping back up to show the circularity but the software I was using didn't support that. So is socialism purely moral/political point of view then? I know the USSR prided themselves on scientific achievements way back when. But then, if a senior party official says X is the truth, will a scientist dare disagree with him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand herself said socialists were using a circular definition of "the good" by defining the good as "the good for the greatest number," I almost drew a little arrow looping back up to show the circularity but the software I was using didn't support that. So is socialism purely moral/political point of view then? I know the USSR prided themselves on scientific achievements way back when. But then, if a senior party official says X is the truth, will a scientist dare disagree with him?

1) Yeah Ayn Rand is wrong. Take for instance Noam Chomsky. He has a very clear idea about what the good is, he thinks its man's power to use his creative capacity, he claims capitalism is bad because it alienates men from this. This was Orwell's and Oscar Wilde's theory also(see The Soul of Man Under Capitalism).

In my opinion the Alienation/Psychology of Power (and power sharing) argument is the most powerful ethical argument for socialism.

Socialism isn't a consistent philosophy, it is just a political and economic theory.

Marxism is a whole philosophy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand herself said socialists were using a circular definition of "the good" by defining the good as "the good for the greatest number,"

Well, really ANY definition of the good that is subjective is circular; even god determining the good is subjective because that's whatever people happen to feel about a mystical entity. (Just mentioning because I think you were inaccurate, I don't think Rand said socialists in particular define the good as the good for the greatest number.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, really ANY definition of the good that is subjective is circular; even god determining the good is subjective because that's whatever people happen to feel about a mystical entity. (Just mentioning because I think you were inaccurate, I don't think Rand said socialists in particular define the good as the good for the greatest number.)

The exact quote was "The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable "will of God" as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with "the good of society," thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as 'the standard of the good is that which is good for society.' This meant, in logic—and, today, in worldwide practice—that "society" stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since "the good" is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that "society" may do anything it pleases, since "the good" is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. And—since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men—this meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires." (Virtue of Selfishness p15)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a better exercise for yourself than for anything publishable. It might yield some intended results as in this other funny, and even more accurate, graphic from "another age" (2006): SocialismPostmodernism.gif

It's easy to point out the mistakes there, for instance, there are several kinds of religion other than the specific branch of Christianity you chose(I assume by familiarity) to represent.

Likewise there are several other kinds of "laic"(non religious) minds other than Socialist and Rational. For instance, what about Rationalizing atheists, like Noam Chomsky (where would he fit in your graph?), or supertsticious people who believe in luck instead than in god? Or in institutions (medicine) and specific nations (Korea, Israel) instead than in society?

You could improve it by first deciding the goal in your graph. Is this an exercise for your mind, much like writing? Are you trying to communicate something to a massive audience?

Are you, maybe, trying to represent psychological traits and or mechanisms that lead to the easily labelled results? If so check out the work Dr unpronouncable

" One of the greatest superstitions of our time is the belief that it has none " Celia Green

Edited by volco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...