The Laws of Biology
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by The Laws of Biology
-
-
-
38 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
What we are questioning is your suggestion that Objectivism is tainted with certain prescientific gobbledygook.
I am suggesting or speculating that Objectivism, being built on the basic "chassis" (structural, conceptual foundation) of Aristotelianism, carries over, in an implicit and "unconscious" way, certain pre-scientific, now discredited concepts that were a part of the original system of Aristotle.
This view is built on the view that great philosophical systems, such as those of Aristotle and Ayn Rand (and also others, such as Kant's, Hegel's, Marx's) are systems, and that each part of the system is necessary for the whole system to work, much as, in the internal workings of a mechanical windup clock, all the internal parts are necessary, none of its parts are superfluous.
For example, Aristotle's system contained God, who is called the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause. Now, was God essential to Aristotle's system? Some philosophers say that it was. And so, my suggestion or speculation is that when Ayn Rand built her system on the chassis of Aristotelianism, she carried over God into her system, despite her intentions to the contrary. Most of the other latter-day schools of Aristotelianism that I am aware of are openly and enthusiastically theistic (e.g., the Natural Law philosophy of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, on the Supreme Court).
This case of God is just one example.
There are so many pre-scientific, now discredited concepts within the original Aristotelianism, and it is arguable that many of them were essential to the whole functioning, internal logic, integrity, and legitimacy of his system. And so, I propose that is it worth investigating whether many of these pre-scientific, now discredited concepts are implicitly present in latter-day forms of Aristotelianism, such as Objectivism.
At the very least, I just disagree with the claim by adherents of any of the latter-day schools of Aristotelianism, that they can just cut away any part of the original Aristotelianism that they don't like, and keep the parts that they do like. I am suggesting that, when you are dealing with complex, integrated systems of thought, the "a la carte" approach really doesn't work.
Moreover, Aristotle, despite all his brilliance, was a pre-scientific, pre-Darwin, pre-Newton, pre-Einstein, pre-Freud, pre-Pasteur, pre-Crick and Watson man. Aristotle was a genius, but he still was living in a relatively primitive time. Aristotle, if he came back alive now, would, I propose, after studying modern science, modern philosophy, and world history, quicky repudiate most of this philosophy. (When modern people go back to ancient philosophies, I speculate that it is because they are trying to undo the present or stop the future, so to speak. This is the essence of "Conservatism." And I admit there are many good reasons to undo the present or stop what seems to be coming in the future. But I tend to doubt that trying to revert society to ancient systems of thought is going to be the solution.)
This idea that the "a la carte" selection from existing systems of though doesn't work--this isn't my original idea. There are many professional philosophers who espouse this view. I learned from them. Of course, they could be wrong. But, to me, they don't seem wrong.
Today we have people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announcing that they are "Socialists," yet insisting that they do not accept or carry forward the bad parts of the worldwide tradition of Socialism as seen in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. But I believe this "a la carte" approach does not work.
At the very least, to me, all this all seems worth investigating in the case of Objectivism and Aristotelianism.
If I were writing a Master's thesis or Ph.D. dissertation, this might be my topic.
-
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
There is a certain sense in which Objectivism is a form of Aristotelianism.
There is a certain sense in which Christianity is a form of Judaism.
There is a certain sense in which Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a form of Newtonianism. I understand Einstein himself considered his work to be carrying on the tradition of Newton.
But in each case there are important differences that we must consider if we are to understand the systems involved.
(Emphasis added.)
Please note that it was not just the use of the label Aristotelianism that dream_weaver was calling quite the leap.
Your leap becomes even wilder in light of this:
Also, you have not yet tried to answer my question:
I speculate that adherents to Objectivism would rather that Objectivism not be classified and placed in a taxonomy of Western philosophy because adherents of Objectivism view Objectivism as "sui generis," as being in a class by itself, as being the one and only true philosophy, as the "final philosophy," with all other philosophies being defective, incomplete, irrelevant, and destructive.
I suppose that is the issue at stake, as I see it.
I see great value in studying and applying Objectivism.
Objectivism is one of the great and important systems within Western Philosophy.
Objectivism helps present-day people avoid being seduced by systems like Marxism and Fascism.
I would like to see leaders such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Pope Francis, the Dalia Lama, and Vladimir Putin study Objectivism in a thorough and fulsome way.
Objectivism has focused my mind on the crucial conflict between ethical Egoism and ethical Altruism.
I see great value in examining how Egoism and Altruism play out in terms of phenomenon like self-esteem, self-reliance, personal initiative, resentment, romantic love, child rearing, enjoyment of living, business success and failure, general societal economic and political well-being, tyranny vs. liberty, war and peace, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, anthropogenic changes to the global biosphere, and so on.
Objectivism is true philosophy.
Reading Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff is a true joy, and always rewarding.
But, to me, the idea of there ever being a "final philosophy" is anathema to the very idea of philosophy, humanity, and liberty.
Ayn Rand wrote and spoke about various errors of Aristotle, errors that she says that she corrected in her system of philosophy.
I do acknowledge that Ayn Rand's system, while being largely built on the "chassis" of Aristotelianism, does contain many innovations that are not found in Aristotle's original system or in other later forms of Aristotelianism.
Ayn Rand was a brilliant, creative, innovative thinker.
But Ayn Rand, as I understand it, never permitted her students to even consider the possibility that there might be errors in her system of philosophy that would need to be corrected by future or contemporary philosophers.
This, as I understand it, is why Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's designated philosophical heir, has declared that Objectivism is a "closed system."
I personally, at the present time, see no way to justify the view that philosophy was an open system from the time of ancient Greece up until 1982, and then became a closed system forever after that time.
And so, while I study Objectivism for the aim of learning more about reality and for correcting my misunderstandings and misperceptions, and while I even think every American student in high school and college would benefit from a study of Objectivism, given that Objectivism is one of the great and important systems within Western Philosophy, I also believe that I and others will benefit the most from learning the entire history of Western Philosophy, and leaning to identify the various "schools" and "traditions" within that history and seeing how they relate and connect and compare and contrast.
And I think we all benefit from not ruling out that future progress in Philosophy is still possible, probably needed, and even likely.
-
On 2/25/2022 at 4:00 PM, dream_weaver said:
Miss Rand owing a philosophical debt to Aristotle, and Objectivism being essentially Aristotelean after the fashions of the portions you've extracted of his for consideration, seems quite the leap.
I think Ayn Rand herself acknowledged that her system was a form of Philosophy (Western Philosophy).
After all, she wrote a book titled "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"
Now, if Ayn Rand can acknowledge that her Philosophy of Objectivism is one philosophy existing in a world of other existing philosophies, and sharing enough in common with those other philosophies that they can all correctly be called by the category title of "Philosophy," then why couldn't someone in the present time take notice of all that Objectivism shares in common with original Aristotelianism and also with later forms of Aristotelianism (e.g., Thomism), and give the opinion that Objectivism is not only a form of Philosophy (Western Philosophy), but is also a form of the smaller logical sub-category of Aristotelianism?
That seems logical and reasonable to me. Isn't it appropriate to engage in logical, taxonomic, and hierarchical classification? Didn't Aristotle do that and recommend that, as a way to understand the world?
If this approach is not sound, why isn't it?
I mean, if it is not logical and reasonable to locate Objectivism in its logical place in the universe of philosophy, exactly and precisely why isn't it?
Should we say instead that Aristotle's system of philosophy was an early, embryonic form of Objectivism?
-
I can see how central the concept of Altruism is.
I would like to study the history of this word and of some closely related concepts.
I can see that Ayn Rand's concept of Altruism is somewhat different than how most people use the term, or, at least, her concept provides certain specific psychological conditions that must be present before Altruism can be said to exist. There is more depth to her concept.
She relates Altruism to someone believing that they literally have no "right to exist" unless they are constantly devoted to sacrificing their whole life for other people.
Ayn Rand's concept of Altruism sounds like a very extreme, very pathological condition, that might not exist in most people, but maybe only in Catholic nuns, Catholic monks, certain other religious fanatics, and a few zealous dedicated Marxist revolutionaries.
In any case, I see myself lacking in knowledge of this topic.
-
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
As I understand it, the point was not that the movies, taken as a whole, promoted Communism, but rather that bits of Communist propaganda had been slipped into movies that were primarily about other subjects.
Here's a bit of a digression: I have always loved the original "Planet of the Apes" movie that came out in 1968. I recently learned that the second screenwriter of that movie was Michael Wilson, a one-time Communist Party member who was blacklisted in Hollywood in the 1950s.
The first screenwriter on the movie was Rod Serling.
I can't recall any Communist propaganda in the 1968 "Planet of the Apes," but, who know, maybe it is there.
The movie is very pessimistic about humankind's prospects for survival in the age of weapons of mass destruction, but I don't think Capitalism is blamed, but rather human nature itself. That doesn't sound very Communist to me.
-
I just remembered that Ayn Rand expressed criticism of some popular Hollywood films. As I recall, in her testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Ayn Rand said that several popular Hollywood films were examples of Hollywood films that promote Communism.
As I see it, some of the films that Ayn Rand criticized contain dramatizations of altruism that I think are similar to dramatizations of altruism in "The Shawshank Redemption" and also in "Forrest Gump."
(I concede that I'm not using the particular, more limited definition of "altruism" that Ayn Rand used. I believe that I'm using the more standard dictionary or encyclopedia definition, and the more historically normal and consistent definition. I am not asserting that Ayn Rand's definition of "altruism" is wrong, just different.)
-
31 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:
None of the examples in your post are instances of altruism
I think you are correct.
I found this definition of "altruism" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61Even so, for me, this doesn't entirely settle the matter.
Why?
Because I wonder if Ayn Rand has artificially constricted the definition of "altruism" in such a way that it doesn't match up with the full mental, cognitive, and behavior dynamics of what people observe (in self and others) in the phenomenon of altruism.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives this introductory definition:
Behavior is normally described as altruistic when it is motivated by a desire to benefit someone other than oneself for that person’s sake. The term is used as the contrary of “self-interested” or “selfish” or “egoistic”—words applied to behavior that is motivated solely by the desire to benefit oneself. “Malicious” designates an even greater contrast: it applies to behavior that expresses a desire to harm others simply for the sake of harming them.
Under the definition of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I think that much of what Andy Dufresne does in "The Shawshank Redemption" is aptly called "altruism."
Still, this doesn't prove that there's a problem with Ayn Rand's system of ethics.
In the fields of philosophy and psychology, there is no "Supreme Court" to appeal to for a final ruling.
But I do think many professional philosophers have written a lot about how some people give words unusual (unusually broad or unusually restricted) meanings in order to "stack the deck," so to speak, in order to reach (or justify) certain conclusions.
I'm not saying that this has occurred in the case of Ayn Rand's concept of "altruism."
But I am left wondering, and I may someday investigate this matter further.
-
44 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
In her very favorable introduction to Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three, Ayn Rand says the focus is not "What great values these men are fighting for" but "What greatness men are capable of when they fight for their values".
That's interesting.
Would or did Ayn Rand praise Fidel Castro or Che Guevera for the greatness they demonstrated in fighting for the implementation of the Socialist values they apparently sincerely believed in?
-
In the film "The Shawshank Redemption" (starring Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman), the hero, Andy Dufresne, is sentenced to life in prison in a harsh prison for murders of which he was completely innocent.
While he is in prison, Andy Dufresne volunteers his time and effort to help other inmates learn to read and get other education. This seems like altruism; Andy Dufresne got nothing from it in terms of money, freedom, sex, or anything.
In one scene, Andy Dufresne plays, over the prison loudspeakers, a recording of a beautiful, inspiration duet from a Mozart opera, in order to inspire and comfort his fellow prisoners. This seems like altruism, especially given that Andy Dufresne knew that this action would lead to him being severely punished by the warden (which did in fact happen--so Andy willingly sacrificed himself for the sake of his fellow prisoners).
The hero Andy Dufresne eventually uses his reason and courage to escape from the prison, but he also makes detailed plan to help his friend named Red survive and thrive when Red is eventually paroled out of prison. This seems like altruism.
Thus, the "redemption" in the movie's title refers not only to Andy Dufresne's escaping from prison and ending up with the warden's ill-gotten wealth.
The "redemption" in the movie's title also refers to Andy Dufresne's voluntary actions to be the savior of the life of his friend Red, and also to the general help and inspiration that he voluntarily brought to some of his fellow prisoners.
It seems clear that Andy Dufresne was significantly motivated by altruism, and that, in fact, this this dramatization of the good results of altruism is one of the things that leads many moviegoers to love "The Shawshank Redemption" and to love its hero, Andy Dufresne.
So, what would Ayn Rand or any conscientious follower of the principles of Objectivism say about the altruism (pointed out above) that is dramatized in "The Shawshank Redemption"?
I do like "The Shawshank Redemption," and I realize I like it mainly because Andy Dufresne is such a "good guy" (altruistic; Christ-like).
But should I love this movie for this reason?
Would I be wiser and more ethical and more rational to reject this movie as childish pablum, as a silly fantasy fairy tale?
It's true that Andy Dufresne never advocates for government-mandated altruism, as in Socialism or Progressivism.
But does Andy Dufresne's philosophy of life and way of life really fit in with the ethics of The Virtue of Selfishness?
Do any of the heroes or heroines in Ayn Rand's novels, plays, or screenplays live out a life of voluntary altruism the way that Andy Dufresne does?
-
12 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:
Ayn Rand did not give a blanket endorsement of everything in Aristotle and acknowledged that Aristotle made errors.
Where do you find any trace in Ayn Rand of that business about everything having a soul and being motivated by love for "God"?
What people, and why should we believe them?
On what grounds do they so theorize?
What is your or their definition of "forms of Aristotelianism"?
All those are good and interesting questions, in my opinion. I will just offer some very brief comments, and then try to return to these issues at a later time.
I have, from time to time, felt that I detected hints of an unconscious or implicit God dynamic within the system of thought in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Not the Christian God. But maybe the God of Aristotle or the God the ancient Stoics. The figure of God has a way of popping up in systems of thought, despite intentions to the contrary. Some scientists speculate that "God" has evolved as a way of thinking in the human brain, and so it hard to escape. That's all I'll say for now about this.
In general, I find great value, for purposes of understanding, in properly classifying and categorizing things.
This is what scientists have done with the Periodic Table of Elements for chemistry and physics, and with taxonomy ("tree of life") for biology.
There are several online, free encyclopedias that have articles on "Aristotelianism." These describe the essential characteristics of Aristotelianism.
I think all the forms of Aristotelianism are practically identical in terms of Metaphysics and Epistemology, and this all goes back to Aristotle as the founder of that structure of thought.
Even the division of philosophy, into Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics is a division invented by Aristotle. Philosophers from some opposing systems do not accept that division at all, and they view it as leading to philosophical error.
Once you settle on certain conclusions of Metaphysics and Epistemology, then everything else in a system flows logically from that.
For some other current thinkers who espouse modern forms of Aristotelianism, I would recommend (as examples) Professor J. Budziszewski, Professor Nathan Schlueter, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Professor Larry Arnhart (he writes a blog titled "Darwinian Conservativism"), and Joey Breslin (he writes fiction and philosophy on a blog titled JoeyBreslinWrites.com).
I have found it surprising to see and learn how prominent are various forms of Aristotelianism within intellectual circles in the present-day USA, especially among Conservatives, Libertarians, conservative Roman Catholics, and certain Evangelicals who tend to steer away from Biblical fundamentalism.
We truly seem to be living in a period of Aristotelianism Revival.
I view Ayn Rand's Objectivism as a form of Aristotelianism, and so I interpret the popularity of Ayn Rand's Objectivism as being a part of the general Aristotelianism revival.
All the various forms of Aristotelianism appear to be categorically different from systems of thought built and based on philosophers such as: Marx, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche.
In general, it seems to me that Aristotelianism has been recognized by many as an effective tool in the cultural and political war against the various forms of Leftism (secularism, collectivism, Marxism, Democratic Socialism, Progressive liberalism, nihilism, skepticism, modern cynicism, Utopianism, etc.) and certain forms of Rightism (fascism, Nazism, populism, etc.)
All this has driven me to strive to learn more about Aristotle's system of thought. And, I am looking at it as a system, a composite whole, like a mechanical clock or other machine that needs all of its parts in order to work at all.
-
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
What does all this prescientific gobbledygook about everything having a soul and being motivated by love for "God" have to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy?
Ayn Rand quotations on the philosophy of Aristotle:
The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle.
If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle.
Aristotle’s philosophy was the intellect’s Declaration of Independence. Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world’s first intellectual, in the purest and noblest sense of that word.
To this day everything that makes us civilized beings, every rational value that we possess—including the birth of science, the industrial revolution, the creation of the United States, even the structure of our language—is the result of Aristotle’s influence.
The nature of your actions—and of your ambition—will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a form of Aristotelianism.
I believe that is an objectively correct categorization or classification. This has been recognized by many professional university-based philosophers who are experts in the philosophy of Aristotle.
Ayn Rand said many times that she built her philosophy on the foundation laid by Aristotle, much as Bill Gates developed his first Windows operating system on the basis on earlier, similar microcomputer operating system developed by another man.
Nearly all the philosophical terminology and concepts that Ayn Rand uses are taken directly from the writings of Aristotle.
So, I believe that any study of the philosophy of Ayn Rand is enhanced by also studying the original "source code," so to speak, i.e., the philosophy of Aristotle.
Ayn Rand made some changes in the philosophy of Aristotle. But, when a software engineer alters computer code, sometimes remnants or vestiges of the earlier code remain, sometimes without the intention of the revisor. In human DNA, there are genes that appear to serve no function, but, may have served a function in our ancestor species, and this "junk DNA" is thought by some people to do things that are important but not presently understood or recognized.
Some people theorize that there are vestiges of Aristotle's "prescientific gobbledygook" present in all the currently living and influential forms of Aristotelianism, even if these vestiges are not expressed in an explicit or conscious manner.
-
20 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
What does this mean?
Some light may be shed on this by the fact that Aristotle's philosophy teaches that the planets (e.g., Mars, Venus, Saturn, etc.) and the stars all have souls and desires and are moved to move in perfect circles by their love of God and their desire to be like God. This is expressed succinctly in this excerpt from the Britannica encyclopedia:
Although the revolving heavens, for Aristotle, lack the possibility of substantial change, they possess potentiality, because each heavenly body has the power to move elsewhere in its diurnal round. Since these bodies are in motion, they need a mover, and this is a motionless mover. Such a mover could not act as an efficient cause, because that would involve a change in itself, but it can act as a final cause—an object of love—because being loved does not involve any change in the beloved. The stars and planets seek to imitate the perfection of the unmoved mover by moving about the Earth in a circle, the most perfect of shapes. For this to be the case, of course, the heavenly bodies must have souls capable of feeling love for the unmoved mover. “On such a principle,” Aristotle says, “depend the heavens and the world of nature.”
Ultimately, Aristotle sees everything as having a soul--rocks, trees, water, worms, horses, human beings, and all are always being moved, in their own way, in everything they do, by love for God.
Even the unethical things that human beings do are, according to Aristotle, misguided expressions of love (excess love, insufficient love, or perversions of love).
This is the grand, cosmic rational order of the universe, according to the philosophy of Aristotle. I believe this is especially covered in Aristotle's books "On The Heavens," "Metaphysics," and "On the Soul."
-
1 hour ago, necrovore said:
This looks like the mind-body dichotomy again, but in a different form.
Perhaps. I know that the mind-body dichotomy has a long history in Western Philosophy. I don't think about it much. Maybe I should.
But to me, the mind-body dichotomy is really only or mainly an issue within theological philosophy. I try to steer clear of theological issues and concerns.
I know that Aristotle is not generally thought of as a theologian. But I've seen many recent academic philosophers writing about the "theology of Aristotle."
I think God is integral to all Aristotelian philosophy, even if just implicitly.
-
1 hour ago, necrovore said:
The life proper to man is to deal with reality directly (rather than relying on victims to do it), and to deal with other people only as traders, offering value for value.
I like and appreciate the practical ethical philosophy that Ayn Rand gave the world.
It is a million times better than the philosophy of Socialism or the philosophy of Fascism.
I think hundreds of thousands of lost, confused, or discouraged souls have been restored to a productive, purposeful, active, sensible life due to being influenced by the writing of Ayn Rand.
But the Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology that Ayn Rand used to justify her ethics seems to me, in light of Darwin and other modern science, to be indefensible.
-
18 minutes ago, necrovore said:
I don't think it's possible (or "hubris") to "rely on reason too much." The only way to correct an error in reasoning is through reason.
I think the present-day, post-Darwin era of the sciences of Biology and Psychology reveal something that the ancient thinkers (Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas) fundamentally disbelieved: That all reason is in the service of unreason.
What I mean by that is that all reason functions merely as a tool in striving to satisfy animal impulses (these might also be called instincts, drives, libido, the Id, passions, or biological/genetic programming).
By contrast, the aforementioned ancient thinkers thought that the whole universe, from God down to the stars, planets, humans and worms, was utterly and completely rational, and that the human mind had the capacity to totally and completely guide human conduct by rational means toward rational goals. The ethics, politics, metaphysics, and epistemology of those ancient thinkers are suffused with this conception of things.
But is this conception of things still tenable in the post-Darwin age of modern science? I don't see how.
And so, to perpetuate this ancient view of things in the modern age seems like "hubris" to me. I.e., a throwback to a time before Copernicus showed that Aristotle was wrong about the earth being the literal center of the universe with all the stars and planets and the sun orbiting around it, and before Darwin showed that Aristotle was wrong about the human mind being purely and wholly rational like the mind of God.
-
3 hours ago, RationalEgoist said:
https://newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rands-musical-biography/
Perhaps this article would be of interest to you. I particularly enjoy "Amina" composed by Paul Lincke, which you can find on YouTube.
That's fantastic. Thank you.
-
I think the heroic "romantic manifesto" music of John Williams in the "Star Wars" movies, the musical leitmotifs meant to express the values of the Jedi Knights (Luke, Obi-War, Yoda, etc.), could perhaps be the music of Ayn Rand and her philosophy.
How so? Why?
Because I think Ayn Rand is a Jedi Knight and logic is her lightsaber. She fights for the Light of Reason and Freedom against the Dark Side of the collectivist, passionate irrationalist, and totalitarian Sith.
-
1 hour ago, RationalEgoist said:
Rand's favorite musical composer was Sergei Rachmaninov.
Thanks for the info. I did not know that.
Hmmm. I'm listening to Rachmaninov now. Nice music. But do I hear or feel Ayn Rand's life or philosophy in it? No, so far, I don't. But that may just be me.
I sort of hear or feel something like Ayn Rand's life or philosophy in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, or in Rossini's William Tell Overture.
My idea is that the music of Ayn Rand or Objectivism should express:
- The Infinite Power of Mind
- Strength
- Confidence
- Strong Self-Determination and Independence
- Aloofness from the Maddening Crowds and the Common Man
- Clarity
- Certainty
- Rationality
- Orderliness
- Romance
- Relentless Drive for Heights of Personal Excellence
- Integrity
- High Ideals
- Pride
- Elegance
- Judgment and Conviction
Well, if so, what music then?
Johann Strauss' The Blue Danube Waltz, maybe?
"Excuse me, Miss Rand, may I have this dance?"
-
I will give some examples of what I am thinking of:
- Richard Strauss' classical music piece titled "Also Sprach Zarathustra" seems to very effectively express some of the elements of the philosophy of Nietzsche.
- Beethoven's Fifth Symphony seems to express some of the philosophical ideas in the air during the period of the Napoleonic Wars.
- Some consider Richard Wagner's operas (especially his later works) to express certain philosophical ideas that are attractive to people within right wing "folk" or populist movements.
- Some people regard the former psychology professor Jordan Peterson as a philosopher, and Dr. Peterson seems to think that Mozart Symphony No. 41 in C Major expresses his philosophy (which he characterizes as "classical liberalism").
- In the original "Star Wars" films, composer John Williams created leitmotifs to express the values of each major character: Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, etc.
- The philosophy of Jewish Kabbalah was expressed in the 1920s in music by composed by Baal HaSulam (Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag)
So, in the great big, wide world of music, is there any music that you think seems to capture and communicate the spirit or soul of the life and/or philosophy of Ayn Rand?
-
Within the last week I saw a news report that scientists have, for the first time, observed chimpanzees in the wild applying insects in a medicinal manner to wounds on fellow injured chimpanzees. For many years, scientists have observed chimpanzees creating tools with twigs to extract ants from tiny spaces, in order to eat the ants.
So, animal species other than human beings, especially those close to humans in evolutionary terms, use reason to solve problems and attain goals, just like human beings.
But we can also readily see the limits to the rationality of chimpanzees, dogs, wolves, rats, and so on. In many ways, and sometime to their ruin and destruction, these lower animals follow animal passions, drives, programming, and instincts.
Does it not logically follow that there are similar limits to the rationality of human beings?
Yet, ancient thinkers such as Socrates, Aristotle, and Aquinas assumed that humans were capable of completely and totally guiding their lives by rationality, and likewise assumed that entire human societies could be organized and conducted rationally. The ancient thinkers taught that, in human beings, passions and irrational impulses, instincts, lusts, desires (whatever they may be called) could be overcome by the combination of Free Will, Knowledge, and Rationality.
But why would the human animal have this capacity for complete and total rational self-control, when none of the other animals on the earth have this capacity?
One book (on the subject of Existentialism) I found online described the ancient view in this manner:
The way of Christian ethics was described by St. Thomas Aquinas as "the movement of the rational creature toward God" (motus rationalis creaturae in Deum). And, as the action of every creature flows from its "being" (operari sequitur esse) the action of man, the rational creature, must correspond to his rational nature which as such has the capacity of knowing the hierarchical order of Being. In trying to conform his existence to his essence (or nature), man may expect to realize the meaning of his life in the created universe: in obedient reverence for the order of Being, for his own self, and for God, the Creator of all essences and existences, in whose Being essence and existence are self-identical or one.
Could we not say that the ancient thinkers were guilty of hubris in assuming that the human animal (and only the human animal) had the capacity for complete and total rational self-control?
Isn't this the very hubris that the ancient Greek tragic plays, such as those by Sophocles and Aeschylus) were aiming to show (and in fact did show) to ancient audiences with works such as "Oedipus Rex"? To use a term from Aristotle's Poetics, Isn't excess faith in human rationality the ultimate "Hamartia" (tragic flaw; miscalculation)? (That was, I believe, the view of Nietzsche concerning the ancient Greek tragic plays, though I don't regard his opinions as having any weight, given the poor manner in which he conducted his own life.)
It is easy to recognize how present-day Theists (Christians; Muslims; etc.) might imbue human beings with special powers that they don't actually have, since Theists have a theory of the supernatural creation and the supernatural sustaining of many magical powers and dynamics. Theists in general reject any parts of Evolutionary Biology, Psychology, Neurology, or the other sciences that conflict with their Theistic systems of thought. And the ancient Greco-Roman-Medieval thinkers, being hundreds of years before the discovery of the theory of biological evolution, were deprived of the benefits of such modern scientific knowledge.
Therefore, should we not conclude that the ancient Greco-Roman-Medieval thinkers were in error in thinking that the human animal (and only the human animal) had the capacity for complete and total rational self-control?
Should we not conclude that if Aristotle could come back from the dead and read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man" that he would quickly disavow (or massively revise) his own books such as "Nicomachean Ethics," "Politics," "Metaphysics," and so on?
-
52 minutes ago, Boydstun said:
For getting a first good wide grip, a good up-to-date overall history today, apparently the following is excellent: A History of Philosophy by A. C. Grayling.
Thank you for suggesting that book and that author, Professor A.C. Grayling. Based on the Wikipedia article on him, he seems like someone from whom I might get some valuable information, interpretations, and perspectives. I will check out the book of his that you suggested. Thank you.
-
In another thread of this discussion forum, a participant posted the following:
According to The Passion of Ayn Rand, she didn’t drive. There was some mention of them owning a car (and what type it was) when they lived in LA, and that Frank would chauffeur her to work in Hollywood. Among her letters I recall one, I think she was writing to the IRS of all people, which was about why she claimed some kind of expense deduction for her husband, where she says that she does not drive. Or it may have been the letter she wrote to the phone company asking them to extend the lines to their home, noting that in case of an emergency, if her husband couldn’t help, that she couldn’t drive.
This made me think of a funny anecdote. In one of his Ford Hall Forum talks in the early nineties, Peikoff mentioned that he’d just switched from a Pontiac to a Lexus. He declared that this was the equivalent of going, philosophically, from Wittgenstein to Aristotle.
"As she had feared, the distance to Hollywood became a severe problem. Frank had promised to teach her to drive their new Cadillac convertible, so that she would not be dependent on him. He gave her several driving lessons, then they both gave up the attempt in mutually enraged despair. Frank was a very bad driver-some of the most terrifying hours in the lives of his friends were spent in cars with Frank at the wheel-and Ayn, who found mechanical objects impossible to master, was unable to learn. Whenever she had to go to the city, Frank had to take her." - Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand
Based on that, I will assume that it is a fact that Ayn Rand never learned to drive a car, never had a driver's license, and never drove a car (except it seems in some learning attempts).
Ayn Rand was born in 1905 and passed away in 1982. She came to the USA at age 20, in 1925, at a time when automobiles were everywhere and very popular. Automobiles were a huge feature of culture, economics, and lifestyle during her entire lifetime.
This makes me wonder if there is some philosophical significance to Ayn Rand's not driving any automobiles.
Does her non-driving have some logical relationship to some principle or principles of Objectivism?
Did the major female characters of Ayn Rand's fiction drive automobiles?
In a related note, the philosopher Martin Heidegger argues in his essay “The Question Concerning Technology" that modern technology is essentially dangerous. He believes that modern technology forces us to misunderstand the world around us, including ourselves.
-
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
Acquiring competence is about acquiring a first hand grasp of the particulars....In her essay Philosophical Detection, she sets the task of investigating philosophies to determine if you are seeing an intellectual achievement or crime.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
Ayn Rand: "No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers" vs. Beethoven's 9th Symphony
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by The Laws of Biology
Clarification
(1)
Ayn Rand wrote the following:
"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men."
(“The Soul of an Individualist,” For the New Intellectual, 77)
(2)
Beethoven's 9th Symphony contains these lyrics:
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Thy magic reunites those
Whom stern custom has parted;
All men will become brothers
Under thy gentle wing.
May he who has had the fortune
To gain a true friend
And he who has won a noble wife
Join in our jubilation!
Yes, even if he calls but one soul
His own in all the world.
But he who has failed in this
Must steal away alone and in tears.
All the world's creatures
Draw joy from nature's breast;
Both the good and the evil
Follow her rose-strewn path.
She gave us kisses and wine
And a friend loyal unto death;
She gave lust for life to the lowliest,
And the Cherub stands before God.
TENOR SOLO AND CHORUS
Joyously, as his suns speed
Through Heaven's glorious order,
Hasten, Brothers, on your way,
Exulting as a knight in victory.
CHORUS
Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter fire imbibed,
Heavenly, thy sanctuary.
Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.
(3)
My questions on the above quotes from Ayn Rand and Beethoven:
--Could any politician be elected to office if he or she expressed the view of Ayn Rand in the quote above in #1? Beethoven's 9th symphony is the national anthem for the European Union. Beethoven's 9th Symphony was played in Germany and all over the world when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. In light of this, isn't it at least necessary for all politicians (who are subject to free and fair elections of the whole citizenry) to at least pretend that they are "prompted by a desire to serve his brothers" (quoting Ayn Rand, as per #1 above)?
--I admit that I love the music of Beethoven in general, and the 9th Symphony in particular. Am I wrong to persist in this affection?
--I admit to finding appealing Beethoven's vision of "All men will become brothers Under thy gentle wing." Am I wrong to find pleasure and goodness in this vision of civilization? (a world without war, terrorism, strife, poverty, mass hate or cruelty, genocide, slavery, etc.)
--In the above quote, Ayn Rand writes: "His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way." I ask: Why couldn't it be reasonable, acceptable, and ethical to have two motives, one being brotherly co-existence and fellow feeling, and the other being selfishness and creation for one's own sake? Why couldn't a person find a healthy balance between the two? Didn't Aristotle, in his system of ethics, promote the idea of the "golden mean" between extremes?