Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Heres a little bit about my political journey. I started as an Objectivist after reading Anthem and immidiately delved into her wider works. I fell in love with the philosophy and it's heroic view of man. However, after seeing the anti-white rhetoric and studying controversial historical events I began leaning to the alt-right while still holding on to my non negotiable Radical capitalist views. I just recently started leaning towards Objectivism, yet I believe there are self-evident racial differences. I would love to discuss the significance of race and the Objectivist view of it with an avid Objectivist, however, if you are going to give me a Yaron Brook tier arguement and just call anyone who wants to discuss race racist, please move on to another post. Thank you in advance to those who want to have an actual discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First we need to know the exact criteria differentiating "human races" - what are they?

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is non starter.  This amounts to the same quality and amount of evidence I have seen presented for Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster as well as conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of JFK and landing men on the moon (allegedly fake).

I will not waste another second here.  I would say good luck to you but that would be disingenuous of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

This is non starter.  This amounts to the same quality and amount of evidence I have seen presented for Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster as well as conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of JFK and landing men on the moon (allegedly fake).

I will not waste another second here.  I would say good luck to you but that would be disingenuous of me.

Oh really? Thats a lofty claim when the link I gave you has several even dozens of references of data collected by the scientific community. I would have to say you're a coward and avoiding a relevant discussion.

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JASKN said:

First we need to know the exact criteria differentiating "human races" - what are they?

I presume you want a definition? Well I would say that races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. An example of this would be the sub species and breeds of animals like the various types of wolves.

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sameak said:

I presume you want a definition? Well I would say that races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. An example of this would be the sub species and breeds of animals like the various types of wolves.

Is that the scientific definition? Which genetics specifically, and in what way are each relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you’re missing the point, in speaking of “self-evident racial differences”. The only self-evident differences are, in fact, skin color and a few similar morphological differences. IMO the number one scientific problem with the concept is that there are no objective criteria for racial classification. That is, there are neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for being classified as “white” versus something else. We do not know how many “races” there are. Being “black” is epiphenomenal, and it has independently arisen in Africa, Greater Australia, and Southern India. An analogous question would be, how many breeds of dog are there? What breed is the offspring of a German Shephard and a Collie?

In order to have a rational discussion of race, you have to be able to say what you are talking about in objective terms. This is why broad racial concepts have given way to somewhat better historico-geographic concepts that have some real connection to genetics: the ancestors of African-Americans historically came from Africa (this is still very course granularity, but it’s an improvement). Reasonable research is being done on the geographical distribution of various alleles, and  this can be used in various ways to generate a probability of a certain ancestory (the Duffy Null allele occurs about 100% of the time in sub-Saharan Africans and infrequently elsewhere, likewise the earwax-type gene correlates with ancestoral geography, dry earwax having developed in North and East Asia). In other words, race isn’t even a scientifically useful concept: we have better concepts based in genetics and history.

The main problem with attempts to impute a correlation between behavior and race is the failure to control variables, which is a fatal flaw in scientific research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sameak said:

I presume you want a definition? Well I would say that races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. An example of this would be the sub species and breeds of animals like the various types of wolves.

Under this characterization, Norwegians and French are a different race. Sindhis and Bengalis are a different race. Do you accept that consequence in your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sameak said:

... races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable....

So, the starting point is: how important are genetics when it comes to .... <IQ, moral-character, fill-in-the-blanks>
Evidence indicates that the two are fairly correlated, but that genetics is of little importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Under this characterization, Norwegians and French are a different race. Sindhis and Bengalis are a different race. Do you accept that consequence in your theory?

I reject that estimate of it. Norwegians and French evolved on the same continent, the others evolved on another. Thus there are major differences, however, yes there are slight differences between the french and Norwegians such as slight IQ differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

So, the starting point is: how important are genetics when it comes to .... <IQ, moral-character, fill-in-the-blanks>
Evidence indicates that the two are fairly correlated, but that genetics is of little importance.

What evidence? I have seen evidence of the contrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

I think you’re missing the point, in speaking of “self-evident racial differences”. The only self-evident differences are, in fact, skin color and a few similar morphological differences. IMO the number one scientific problem with the concept is that there are no objective criteria for racial classification. That is, there are neither necessary nor sufficient criteria for being classified as “white” versus something else. We do not know how many “races” there are. Being “black” is epiphenomenal, and it has independently arisen in Africa, Greater Australia, and Southern India. An analogous question would be, how many breeds of dog are there? What breed is the offspring of a German Shephard and a Collie?

In order to have a rational discussion of race, you have to be able to say what you are talking about in objective terms. This is why broad racial concepts have given way to somewhat better historico-geographic concepts that have some real connection to genetics: the ancestors of African-Americans historically came from Africa (this is still very course granularity, but it’s an improvement). Reasonable research is being done on the geographical distribution of various alleles, and  this can be used in various ways to generate a probability of a certain ancestory (the Duffy Null allele occurs about 100% of the time in sub-Saharan Africans and infrequently elsewhere, likewise the earwax-type gene correlates with ancestoral geography, dry earwax having developed in North and East Asia). In other words, race isn’t even a scientifically useful concept: we have better concepts based in genetics and history.

The main problem with attempts to impute a correlation between behavior and race is the failure to control variables, which is a fatal flaw in scientific research.

Question, does this mean breeds and sub species for animals are unscientific? Why are people so elusive about categorizing people into races but not animals or plants? 339ef33bfe979266006c27224fa18fdc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JASKN said:

Is that the scientific definition? Which genetics specifically, and in what way are each relevant?

There is no concensus definition because this is such a hotly debated topic in the west, although the Chinese largely recognize race so im sure they have a standard definition. The one I gave is precisely the same as the ones for animal breeds and their subspecies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism hold that man is born tabula rasa.
If you disagree, fine: then you're not an Objectivist.

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gio said:

Objectivism hold that man is born tabula rasa.
If you disagree, fine: then you're not an Objectivist.

Its my understanding that Ayn Rand believed that due to the information that was available at the time, is it not true that Objectivism holds reality as its primary source of knowledge? If so, wouldn't the philosophy change to suit the new facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sameak said:

Its my understanding that Ayn Rand believed that due to the information that was available at the time, is it not true that Objectivism holds reality as its primary source of knowledge? If so, wouldn't the philosophy change to suit the new facts?

She didn't believed that "due to the information that was available at the time".
It is true that Objectivism holds reality is the primary source of knowledge.
If tabula rasa is wrong, the philosophy will not change: it would merely mean that this philosophy is wrong.

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sameak said:

I would love to discuss the significance of race and the Objectivist view of it with an avid Objectivist,  . . . . Thank you in advance to those who want to have an actual discussion.

Here's a paragraph from Anthem:

At first, man was enslaved by the gods. But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of the freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled.

What manner of speaking is this? What is it (i.e.; what does she mean) for man to be enslaved by his race?

Or perhaps you would prefer her usage of the term "race" in The Only Path to Tomorrow, or her articles Racism or Global Balkanization from The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what's the point of your argument? Let's put aside the data, because none of us are going to agree with the validity of it, there has been enough scholarly criticisms of your viewpoint no one is going to agree with whatever links you're posting.

Suppose there are two people, A and B. A tests a IQ of 120, B tests an IQ of 119. Ergo what? What inferences, in terms of political philosophy, follow from this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sameak said:

Norwegians and French evolved on the same continent, the others evolved on another.

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.

7 hours ago, Sameak said:

However, after seeing the anti-white rhetoric and studying controversial historical events

Which controversial events?

2 hours ago, Sameak said:

although the Chinese largely recognize race so im sure they have a standard definition.

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...

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sameak said:

I reject that estimate of it. Norwegians and French evolved on the same continent, the others evolved on another. Thus there are major differences, however, yes there are slight differences between the french and Norwegians such as slight IQ differences.

So are you changing your definition of "race"? Originally it was "populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable", and this holds of Norwegians vs. French, so why are Norwegians and French not different races? You presumably know that Europe and Asia are actually a single land-mass, so if you use "continent" as the basis for racial classification, then Koreans and Englishmen are one race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sameak said:

Its my understanding that Ayn Rand believed that due to the information that was available at the time, is it not true that Objectivism holds reality as its primary source of knowledge? If so, wouldn't the philosophy change to suit the new facts?

I think it will be distracting to discuss Gio's question about whether we should call this Objectivism or not. Reality and truth are paramount. If Objectivism is defined as something contrary to that, we should just admit that Objectivism is wrong on some point, and move on. I suggest keeping the focus on the actual issue, and leave "is this Objectivism?" for a different thread.

Recent studies have shown that Darwin's model is a bit Newtonian, and that another source of genetic change can come from individuals actually changing their genes in response to cultural and physical environment. While it is far-fetched to say that "Man is a being of self-made genes" is is no longer kooky. It is plausible to say that a person who is given different cultural and physical inputs from those available to his genetic relatives will actually experience a change in his genes, which will also be passed to his kids.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I think it will be distracting to discuss Gio's question about whether we should call this Objectivism or not. Reality and truth are paramount. If Objectivism is defined as something contrary to that, we should just admit that Objectivism is wrong on some point, and move on. I suggest keeping the focus on the actual issue, and leave "is this Objectivism?" for a different thread.

 

17 hours ago, Sameak said:

I would love to discuss the significance of race and the Objectivist view of it with an avid Objectivist,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Here's a paragraph from Anthem:

At first, man was enslaved by the gods. But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of the freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled.

What manner of speaking is this? What is it (i.e.; what does she mean) for man to be enslaved by his race?

Or perhaps you would prefer her usage of the term "race" in The Only Path to Tomorrow, or her articles Racism or Global Balkanization from The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

I understand exactly what she means, just reading that paragraph now sends chills down my spine and im reminded of my first time reading it. This is the reason I left the Alt Right, they indeed do believe people should be enslaved to their race. Although that wasnt always the case, it got co opted by National Socialists and other Hitlerites and Fascists, but thats beside the point. My point is thats not my view, my view is that race is real and it affects the whole society. The varying IQ averages and cultures changes the quality of life and over arching values of a nation. Simply compare the differences of homogenous nations like Japan and Liberia and you'll know this to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×