Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can man overcome his nature?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The last few weeks, I have been having these run-ins with Marxists on campus. Anyways, with more civilized marxist we have come to agreement on everything, except for the possibilty that man can cognitively over-ride human nature. This would be a violation of the law of identity, if I am not mistaken. With the more brutalized Marxist ( he actually might be a nihilist), the argument moved to the idea that there is no proof that man is selfish. Which I couldn't disagree with more. but I was just curious what you all thought about these fallocies that Marxist/socialist have that man can overcome human nature or that man is not a selfish being.

Tettra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, men are not automatically selfish. Many act for their own destruction. I strongly recommend Nathaniel Branden's essay "Isn't everybody selfish?" in (Ayn Rand's) _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

At the same time, man is not innately unselfish. If he were, there would be no men. Everyone would sacrifice himself to death.

The essential fallacy of Marxists, in this instance, is not that man has a selfish nature or that man's nature can be overcome- the fallacy is that selfishness is bad.

Objectivism holds that selfishness is good. That's the first principle of Objectivist ethics.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that selfishness is good.  That's the first principle of Objectivist ethics.

It's not the FIRST principle of the Objectivist ethics. The FIRST principle of the Objectivist ethics is probably the fact that life is the source of value. Selfishness is derivative, based on the fact that you cannot live (and thus pursue values) if you do not create values for yourself, i.e. you cannot survive by giving away your means of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I was just curious what you all thought about these fallocies that Marxist/socialist have that man can overcome human nature or that man is not a selfish being.

Tettra

This may or may be of assistance, but the first thing I think you should do is make sure you are operating on the same definition of "selfish". Most folks that I have talked to about Objectivism take the term to mean "to act in furtherance of one's own interests to the exclusion of others" or more like solipsism. I clarify it by using the phrase "rational self-interest" and explain that it takes into account that we have to live as man within a society of other men and that our self-interest often includes being helpful and playing well with others.

However, my opinion is that most communists/socialists are so philosophically bankrupt that a logical argument based on the facts of reality is going to be ineffective anyway. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. I thought about that for a few minutes before posting my original statement. Perhaps my understanding of the delimitation of "Ethics" is slightly mistaken. But my thinking was that identifying the fact that "life is the source of value" would be a Metaphysical principle rather than an Ethical one. The reason being that Ethics is supposed to be a guide to action, and simply knowing the source of values does not tell you that *values are good*, and *should be pursued*, and furthermore it doesn't tell you *who's* values should be pursued first- yourself, or others'?

That led me to consider that perhaps a devotion to reason would be an ethical principle which proceeds selfishness. But I think that in the hierarchy of Ayn Rand's principles, reason is primary to selfishness only in regards to Epistemology. In Epistemology we accept reason and then conclude that selfishness is rational and therefore it is good. But in Ethics, I would still say that selfishness comes first- purely from the perspective of a guide to action, reason is good *because* it is selfish. If reason and selfishness were antithetical, as most post-Kantian moralists mistakenly suppose, then- Epistemologically, selfishness would be bad. But Ethically, in this alternate universe, reason would be bad. Because if it is reasonable to self-sacrifice, it must be in one's self-interest to be irrational. Wasn't that Neiche's primary mistake?

But at any rate, when arriving at a rational code of Ethics, specifically, when deriving a code of ethics from a rational Metaphysics and Epistemology- I agree, the identification of life being the source of value is a preliminary step to arriving at the principle that selfishness is good. I think my mistake, if I made one, is probably semantic. Unless there's a conceptual error that I've missed. (But I'm glad someone called me on this. I expected somebody would :lol: )

It's not the FIRST principle of the Objectivist ethics.  The FIRST principle of the Objectivist ethics is probably the fact that life is the source of value.  Selfishness is derivative, based on the fact that you cannot live (and thus pursue values) if you do not create values for yourself, i.e. you cannot survive by giving away your means of survival.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word 'selfish' (in its everyday use) is utterly meaningless. You'd be as well arguing about whether a particular painting is 'art'.

Make sure he knows exactly what you mean by the term if you want to get anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "the selfish nature of man" is a problematic phrase on many levels. As others in this thread and Branden have pointed out, man can act for his own destruction. But the important thing to keep in mind is that man is a "rational animal", meaning he has the capacity and the need to be rational.

Whatever instinct he possesses will not help him without the ability to form concepts, plan, pursue value, and of course pursue his own selfish interests. But saying that man is a rational animal does not mean this is automatic, so in that sense the Marxists have it right in saying that man can "overcome his selfish nature".

The important question is, why would he want or need to?

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word 'selfish' (in its everyday use) is utterly meaningless. You'd be as well arguing about whether a particular painting is 'art'.

Make sure he knows exactly what you mean by the term if you want to get anywhere.

My intention was not to mislead the poster, and I regret if my initial post was unclear. But why shouldn't the objective definitions for "selfish" and "art" be assumed when engaging in a conversation about them? Any legitimate dictionary clearly defines selfishness as "following one's self interest." How can you make sure a person knows exactly what you mean by a term.. should you do this with every term you introduce in a conversation?

My usual habbit in conversations-- since, in my experience, the meanings people ascribe to particular words can be vast and (to me) almost completely unpredictable-- is to use all of my words consistently and correctly, and if there are any misunderstandings, to offer my complete definition and/or the premises leading to the definition at that time.

Otherwise, I'd have to preface every statement with my own unabridged dictionary. Maybe I should write my dictionary, post it online, and offer a hyper-link to it in my signature.

But, at any rate.. in my experience, and to the best of my understanding, when a Marxist talks about "the selfish nature of man, which must be overcome," in most cases he *is* using the word "selfish" correctly-- because according to Marxism, which is based on the morality of Altruism, "persuit of one's self interest" is the cardinal sin, in the full extremest sense that Kant used it in defining his Ethics. So what reason would I have to suspect that a person who just finished speaking with Marxists, and is choosing to post on an Objectivist message board, would misunderstand my usage of the word "selfishness" in this context?

Have we Objectivists finally surrendered that word to-- not even the collectivists who offer arguments and a defense of their usage of the word-- but to common usage??? I couldn't think of anything sadder for the future of the English language!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone here noticed that the term “to overcome human nature is pretty much a contradiction in terms? If Marxists—or any other altruists out there—were really convinced that human beings were innately selfish, then shouldn’t they know that if humans ceased to be selfish they wouldn’t be human anymore?—A is A. Or is it possible that the kind of society that Marxists long for is not a society of human beings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There probably is some confusion about what is meant, when I use the phrase selfish. I also agree with you about communist/Socialist/etc. being philsophically bankrupt. They no longer think for themeselves. It seems to be more like a religion to many of them, than a system of thinking, regardless of it's flaws.

Tettra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intention was not to mislead the poster, and I regret if my initial post was unclear.  But why shouldn't the objective definitions for "selfish" and "art" be assumed when engaging in a conversation about them?  Any legitimate dictionary clearly defines selfishness as "following one's self interest."  How can you make sure a person knows exactly what you mean by a term..  should you do this with every term you introduce in a conversation?

Because what you call the 'objective' meaning is actually its technical meaning within Objectivism. Not everyone is familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, and most wo'nt have heard these non-standard usages before. Its the same reason why a physicist cant use special terms from physics within everyday conversation and expect to be understood.

Is the Oxford English Dictionary 'legitimate'?

should you do this with every term you introduce in a conversation?
Only when there is a risk of confusion, or when you are using words in a special non-standard way. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why shouldn't the objective definitions for "selfish" and "art" be assumed when engaging in a conversation about them?

No one is saying that you can't assume you are operating under the same definition. Obviously you can if you want. What I am saying (and I think Hal alluded to as well) is that the particular word "selfish" can and frequently does lead to miscommunication and pointless arguing if you are both operating under assumption that you each share a common understanding of the term. What the dictionary says is all well and good, but the connotation of the word, outside of Objectivist's usage, tends to be negative and assuming that one acts exclusively in one's self-interest regardless of the consequence to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Oxford English Dictionary 'legitimate'?

It was, up to a certain publication date. I'm not sure when it was, but at a certain point, the authors of this dictionary made an explicit decision to define their words by the cannon of popular definitions, rather than any objective standard. I'm not sure what the standard was before for Oxford, in terms of an exact proceedure. I assume it involved a scupulously literal, essentialized analysis of the word, with an emphasis on the etymology and roots of the word, and I assume that the definition was not to include the word being defined, and that there were to be no internal contradictions.

Also, I know that in the earlier part of the 20th century, the arbitrary addition of a moral judgement in regards of the supposed significance of self-interest to the interests of others was *not* included, whereas in modern edditions it is. And the most recent copy of the Oxford English goes on for a couple of pages bragging about how much consideration is given to popular usage, and the supposedly constantly evolving cultural evolution of words, whereas I've never seen that in the introductions of older dictionaries.

I assume Objectivists are not the only ones who notice a difference in the clarity and objectivity of various dictionaries. I don't mind defining my more commonly misunderstood words and concepts, but restricting myself to terms such as "rational selfishness" is too redundant and too much of a surrender for me-- and it gives the impression that it's possible for irrationality to be in one's self interest.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...