[Tabula Rasa]

Again please correct me if I'm taking this out of context, but.

Why do you use the word ''expect'' without it pertaining to someone who is expecting something?

It's just a metaphorical use of language. No conscious thing actually "expects" anything in the environment anymore than a ball on a slope "wants" to roll downwards. It just makes it easier to get the point across. Evolutionary biologists themselves do this (at least Dawkins does, and I think it's very effective).

You could also say, a jeep or something designed with four-wheel-drive "anticipates" rough terrain where a normal car does not, if you catch my meaning.

By the way, David Reimer was completely oblivious to his birth sex as far as I know, yet he said he always "knew" there was something amiss there even if he couldn't put it in words. But I see you don't deny innate sex differences an innate (rational) human nature. I think our disagreement is about degrees here.

[Nathaniel Branden]

And I'm much more comfortable reading a self-help book where the author is closer to my worldview. It might not seem important but it makes a difference, however hard to explain.

Some of the materials I've come across are even religious in nature, which makes me uncomfortable.

[Tabula Rasa]

I'll follow your suggestion, thanks.

I intend to read as much as I can of Ayn Rand's works anyway. She's too important not to explore in depth.

[Nathaniel Branden]

It seems to me from reading the article that, aside from praising emotions, he didn't really reject anything so much as criticized a lack of means for people to improve themselves (according to Objectivists standards). Which is a normal critique coming from a psychologist. He believes Ayn Rand properly defined virtue but did not provide or allow for a guide for people to get there.

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

Thanks for the replies, this stuff is starting to make sense. I have to be honest when you probe me about issues of property and rights I don't have an answer. This just always struck me as the most sensible way to delimit liberty; "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Call it pragmatism if you will, any other system ends in unpleasant results for everyone (that is unless you like having your rights trampled on, which I guess can't be helped). Negative rights are the only rights that exist (or should I say, should be recognized) because anything else requires usurping other people's rights. Anything that requires undue suffering or effort on nonconsenting parties is as a rule past the line. You only have a right to what you have produced or peacefully acquired (and what you are born with, of course). This makes perfect sense to people in everyday matters but when issues become large scale they suddenly become collectivists. I prefer to be consistent. That's just my take on it.

I have another question. To my understanding Aristotle inspired Rand's philosophy, would I be gaining anything relevant by reading the Nicomachean Ethics (which I'm going to read anyway) with respect to understanding Objectivist ethics, or is that too far off the mark?

Do you think being rational comes naturally, or could this irrationality come naturally as well?

Depending on that, two separate questions:

1. If irrationality comes naturally, is it alright to follow it, and if it isn't, why not?

2. If irrationality doesn't come naturally, then why is there irrationality?

[the questions refer to situations where only individuals are involved, or at least there is no coercion of any kind between individuals involved]

I guess it depends on how you define naturally. I think people are equipped to handle the most basic situations at an individual level. I'm hungry, so I will eat. I'm tired so I will sleep (simplifying for cases where there aren't predators or rivals, etc. We can think strategically to deal with these things, far better than other animals, which is why we've reached the level we are at). I think it's when we come into "unnatural" environments (i.e. dealing with large groups of people in cities, organized religion, etc) that things start to go haywire, and people do things that are not in their best interest, because they were not anticipated by the environment we were originally designed for.

I don't buy the naturalistic imperative, which is why I started this thread in the first place. A lot of things come naturally that aren't necessarily good things to exacerbate. Human beings aren't perfect.

I'm just explaining my view of things here, btw, not trying to make an argument.

[Nathaniel Branden]

Thanks for the non-sarcastic reply.

I'll check out those threads.

[Nathaniel Branden]

I'm just curious about what posters here thought about Nathaniel Branden's arguments about the pros and cons of Ayn Rand's philosophy from the perspective of psychology, if you haven't already read it: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/ar...nd_hazards.html

This isn't a challenge or anything, I'm genuinely interested. I was also thinking of ordering his books on the psychology of self esteem and wondered if they were any good (I'm going to read his memoirs anyway regardless). His writing style is a lot easier to read now than it was in the 60's.

[Tabula Rasa]

DavidOdden, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Nothing I've read (or can even find after reading your post) suggests Chomsky abandoned his theory. I know about the minimalist model, and I understand this is the paradigm that's used now even though many resources feel the need to stick to the old ones. I'm aware I have an outdated understanding of the syntax model, which I'm not happy about, but I assumed the principle was still the same. You'll have to forgive me I'm not taking linguistics just yet (god knows I want to though) so I can only go on the books and lectures I can get my hands on. To be honest I don't understand some of what you said, and to be even more honest your condescending tone doesn't serve as a good motivation for me to try, but it seems you're ahead of the game on this front and I don't think I'm going to win this argument now anyway so I concede. I just need to study more I guess.

And people, I never said there can be such a thing as multiple contradictory truths, I don't even know how you could read that into my statement unless you were on the lookout for blatantly anti-Oist statements like that. My point was if you have a moral system based on X and X is subject to scientific falsifiability, it doesn't matter how much you like your moral system, X may very well still be proven false. It doesn't matter to me though because I don't believe the core of Rand's ethical philosophy need be harmed by psychological nativism (I'm surprised to find she thought we are tabula rasa, although I probably just don't remember the statement from VOS, and further that she found it important). If anything it seems like it should be congruent with the idea that people live and make decisions best when it's at an individual level. Maybe Misean praxeology is just obscuring my view here, who knows, but my impression was that Ayn Rand set out to define human nature and derive an ethical system from it (hence creating the issue of the whole is-ought thing I addressed in my other thread, if there is no human nature than what is is there to derive an ought from? what's the controversy?). To the accusation that I don't understand anything about philosophy; well I can't say I'm an expert, especially if we're talking about Objectivism, but if you think tabula rasa is a prerequisite for philosophy in general then I'm confident enough to say you're mistaken. Philosophy isn't founded on it and not all philosophers are in agreement it, I know that much. There is room for debate here, even if I'm not the one equipped to make the arguments.

You guys also seem to have a difference conception of the blank slate issue from what I've learned. No one as far as I know has suggested conscious knowledge of specific concepts like "chair" and "television," except extreme nativists like Jerry Fodor of whom I've never encountered, but rather an intuitive and instinctive mind that is designed to work in the specific kind of environment that it evolved in; dealing with other human beings, objects that follow the laws of physics, etc. Just as fish have evolved fins and gills that "expect" them to be born in water, even though fish themselves aren't aware fo it. I'm talking about free floating rationales here. Math itself doesn't require seeing or interacting with the environment, you can work out basic arithmetic in your head in the abstract, as well as conceiving of concepts such as intentionality between entities and minds, etc. It's how we have an imagination in the first place. You can think of it like the difference between a computer that comes out of the box with all it's files (which is not what I am arguing) and a computer that is designed to be compatible with certain kinds of files, and needs a harddrive with instructions to begin with before it can do anything with those files anyway.

I'll read that latter.

It's worth the read. It's not a science book, being entirely anecdotal (and written with the prose of a journalist trying to sell his story) but the events it recounts involving this guy's life is astonishing, and telling.

[Tabula Rasa]

Okay, a couple things here. First, no disrespect to Rand but I can't agree that human beings have "no automatic form of survival," that's just counter intuitive. I suppose you could argue that reason what humans need to use in order to survive, but that just one of many mechanisms that were evolved for the purpose.

Second, concerning human universals, they are not a matter common sense or tautologies. There are quite a few universals that go beyond what would be necessary or expected, arbitrary customs and taboos and such. Religion is one of them, there is no human culture on earth that doesn't have religion, the difference is whether it's a folk religion or organized religion (which depends on how developed society is). It is a trait human beings have evolved that kind of ran away.

Just skim this list: http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm

I'll concede that there are other possible explanations for these universals (arriving at the same solution, etc) which are true in some cases, but I think the role genes and inherited brain structure play are being severely underappreciated here.

The case of David Reimer has for more implications than just the fact that we are not completely malleable, it makes a strong case that our birthright has a significant and unchangeable influence on our personality, behavior, attitude and desires. If you would just read the book you would feel the impact.

By the way, of course I know that there are languages that don't require a subject, such as Japanese (I could just say, "don't understand English" and the "I" is understood) but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Don't you know about Chomsky's theory of underlying structures? Or do you not accept it? Pinker demonstrates it very well in the Language Instinct (the "discuss sex with Dick Cavett" line... look it up). I don't buy the idea that all languages use the same underlying system because it's obvious that something must have a subject, and an object, etc. There are many other ways the system could have been arranged and much of it is rather arbitrary (but universal just the same, just read the Stuff of Thought). For example, if you read about parameters, there are language universals in the sense that any language that "does x will also do y, etc." Japanese is a head-last language and is almost a flipped, mirror version of English (which is useful if you are struggling with Japanese grammar). Language would actually be easier and more logical if it didn't have auxiliaries and other arbitrary rules, but it has them and they are present in every language, albeit different on the surface.

I also don't agree that innatism is detrimental to philosophy in general or even Objectivism. Philosophy is concerned with knowledge, existence, ethics, etc. I don't see how advancements in science should harm philosophy, Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and Pinker in his book gives philosophy a spotlight that he acknowledges it (wrongly) so rarely receives anymore. Ayn Rand's philosophy is dependent on the idea that there is such a thing as human nature, if the mind is a blank slate then that all falls apart. None of that should matter anyway though, whether or not a possible truth hurts your philosophy doesn't change whether or not it's true.

I'm not going to argue about specific ideas, as far as I know the concept of "innate ideas" is a metaphor, obviously no one is born with ideas like "spoon" or "monkey" or "car." No one is arguing that. But we are born with an elementary and intuitive understanding of math and physics, color, shape, etc. As well as the idea of parents and human socializing, and even sex and superstition (I "knew" what sex was during pubertal awakening even if know one would tell me the details, just like adults who are now gay "knew" they were gay before they understood what homosexuality even was. And I know what Dennett means when he is talking about "intentionality," I certainly did imputed animism to objects in my childhood, and eventually grew out of it). We are equipped with instincts and expectations that would have benefited us during hunter gatherer days, "ideas" at least in a vague intuitive sense can be imprinted with natural selection.

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

Tenure, I think you hit the nail on the head and I like where you are going with this.

Honestly I do find virtue ethics very attractive (I bought Artistotle's Nicomachean Ethics and am planning to read it, maybe after suffering through Plato). The problem is I see virtue and ethics as two different things. It's leading a good life versus avoiding a bad life, the former is about a show of good character but the latter is an imperative. I'm not convinced living a virtuous life (setting your goals and achieving them, bettering yourself, etc) is a must, it's just a good thing to do, but I don't wish a pox on the lazy, ignorant and unmotivated, just as long as they stay out of other people's way. If that makes any sense.

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

So in your opinion, morality only pertains to what people do to each other? That is what the sentence above means, so with that in mind, I have two questions:

1.Does that include voluntary interactions (such as sex between two or more willing participants, or trade), or only interactions in which one person or group is being hurt or forced to do something against their will?

I am a voluntarist. For me it's about consent and coercion. But there is a lot of gray area here, life isn't so simple. In general one should not be forced to do anything against their will, you can't murder another person because you don't own their life. You can't do what you want with another person's property without their permission.

However your life and property are your own, so short of "good ideas" I can't see compelling moral (key word moral) imperatives for why I shouldn't kill myself. I can see rational and functional objections for why I shouldn't though. Suicide is a sign of poor mental health, and perhaps even poor character, but it's not immoral (unless you have a wife and kids or something).

This video (which you've probably seen) sums up my outlook pretty well: http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-o...rty-english.swf

2. How should individuals decide about choices or courses of action that don't involve "doing something to each other", if not by using morality?

By whatever their goals and values are, measured against their capacity and knowledge. People are generally going to do what comes naturally to them anyway. No one purposefully starves themselves unless they've been infected with religion or other irrational ideas. The problem is when groupthink or superstition trumps individual interests, that's when everything goes haywire. Every serious ethical issue deals with people interacting with each other (or non-existent supernatural entities). I don't see any ethical dilemmas where only individuals are involved though, just psychological ones like self-worth, which I think people like Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden have good things to say about, don't get me wrong, but to me it's just not ethics.

[Tabula Rasa]

Okay, I'm going to try and summarize these responses in a specific counter point, it looks like the main objection you guys have here is that I'm arguing about innate abilities rather than innate knowledge. Well, I'm not exactly making that case, if you look at some of the examples I used they deal with concepts and systems, not just mental capacities. Granted they are concepts and systems mostly designed to absorb knowledge, but they set rules and limits for what kind of knowledge and how it's used (for example, whatever language a human learns it has to have subjects, objects, verbs, etc. There have to be things that fill in slots. We would have trouble acquiring an alien language with different underlying structures).

I suppose it's true that none of the arguments Pinker makes is that people are born with specific knowledge, but to be honest I wasn't aware that that was the objection in the first place. My understanding of Tabula Rasa is that it asserts that people's personalities and beliefs are entirely shaped by their environment (if you're raised by wolves you'll think you're a wolf, if you are raised in a culture where murder is considered a virtue you'll think the same, etc) when this is clearly not the case. There are human universals, for example all cultures consider murder and incest to be taboo. You can't "train" someone to be gay, etc.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by knowledge, I'm not talking about conscious knowledge obviously but you can argue that we are born with a sort of intuitive knowledge (which can translate into conscious knowledge when it's rounded out), and yes it can be imprinted by the effects that natural selection had on our ancestors. We are born expecting this world to be filled with other human beings, we have evolved to be social. If you took a child and put him/her in a completely isolated environment (being provided for in every other possible way) that child would be extremely lonely but perhaps not know why. This is because we have evolved to live in social groups.

Some of my examples were kind of brushed aside. FrolicsomeQuipster, babies aren't shocked by certain events because it contradicts their memory of it. I suppose you can make that case but I'm dubious, it would have to be that babies consciously pay attention to these things from birth and keep track of patterns, then show surprise when something contradicts those patterns. I think this is more a case of something contradicting intuition. Babies come into this world expecting to see faces (there is a part of the brain that registers faces specifically), large moving objects that they are programmed to follow and depend on (i.e. mom), and that 2 + 2 will never equal five. These aren't abilities to me, this is programmed behavior and intuition.

Also, in the case of the twins I don't think you can chalk it up to coincidence, those details were very specific. It wasn't that the outfit fit them, they had the same taste in color and decoration, etc. I suppose one example isn't important, but still...

Here is a very powerful case of nature over nurture IMO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

It's all described in the book As Nature Made Him, worth the read for anyone who is convinced that environmental factors are the prime determiners of personality.

Why is Tabula Rasa so important to Objectivism anyway?

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

Thanks for the responses. To be honest I'm not entirely convinced, but I think I understand. I'll check out those books Tenure recommended.

I think the problem is these arguments work best as a question of what the best course of action is rather than what one's course of action should be. I would have to ask in the context of "ought" or "should" what standard a person is going by, and to say "oneself" is kind of an alien concept to me. At best you can choose your own life as a standard but the only imperatives that can impel you are whatever you don't have a right to (i.e. you should repay a debt because you don't have the right not to). However because I do have the right to something, and the fact that it is probably the best action to do all things considered, doesn't seem like an ethical imperative, just a rational or admirable one.

I know I'm probably not making much sense here, I'm used to thinking in terms of negative rights and limits (what one ought not to do as opposed to what one ought to do) in the context of ethics. I suppose there's a semantical problem I'm creating here.

So what do you think the purpose of morality is?

My understanding of why we have moral and political philosophy in the first place is so that we don't have complete chaos where people can just do whatever they want to each other, or at least that's why these things came about in the first place, I think. In light of growing societies and new scientific knowledge we need to improve on our understanding of ethics and systems of government.

[Tabula Rasa]

I haven't read that but what are the arguments witch you think refute it?

Well for example there are tests they ran on babies gauging their reactions to certain events to see whether it was something they were surprised by or something they expected. Babies would stare a little longer at seemingly impossible events produced by sleight of hand, but showed no interest in things that made sense. For example, if you put one toy behind a screen and the same toy came out the other side, the child would not show interest. Same case if you did two for two or three for three. If however you put one toy behind the screen and two or three came out, or a completely different toy showed up, the baby would be shocked. There are lots of other examples, babies had a ho-hum reaction when they saw something that made sense, but were dumbounded when something broke the laws of physics, even though they don't know anything about physics and haven't been alive long enough to learn all the rules (like that things always fall down rather than up, etc). we are born into this world expecting our environment to follow certain laws, we are born with concepts, so to speak, we have to be otherwise there would be nothing to add to and work with. Newborn babies can actually do basic arithmetic if you test them, little children have solid rules in their minds about how words should be applied to objects (for example, if they hear a second word used to describe an object, they immediately consider it to be an adjective, they stop doing this eventually though). If you read the Trial and Death of Socrates he makes seemingly convincing arguments for why the soul must exist and enter the body at birth from a prior life, based on how people have certain kinds of intuitive knowledge, but you could also apply his arguments to a modern evolutionary perspective. So the common sense arguments still apply I think, except instead of the sole what we have is an evolved brain.

There is also the case where people have had brain damage or brain surgery and they lose certain cognitive abilities (like specific parts of language such as vocabulary, grammar, even cursing, all these things are separate) as well as knowledge and personalities were radically changed, in ways you would never intuit (in one case I read this guy who had a rail spike through his head suddenly became quite rude and at times violent, in another it turns out splitting a part of the brain can literally "split" your personality, where reasoning in the left half is separate from the right, it's hard to explain but it's very freaky). Your genes have a lot to do with how you turn out too. There was one case where identical twins were separated at birth, one born as a Catholic in Nazi Germany and the other as a Jew somewhere in India or something. They had never met, but once brought together they were wearing the exact same outfit, liked the same kinds of food, had the same quirky habits, played the same pranks, etc, down to the eeriest details (they both liked to dip buttered toast in coffee, both flushed the toilet before and after using it, both wore rubber bands on their wrists, both liked to sneeze in crowded elevators to watch people jump, etc.) Obviously there is no single "buttered toast in coffee" gene, but rather it is a combination of sorts (a stronger taste for butter or sweetness than other people, a... propensity to dip things, I guess). You can use your imagination.

He explains it much better than I can though. Personally I'm not done with the book but many of his arguments were already spelled out in the Language Instinct and other books. He's a great science writer, you should check him out.

Proof apart from somebody calling it ''unscientific'' as if science can be invoked by saying the word.

True, but modern discoveries in different fields such as genetics and cognitive science is piling quite a bit of evidence against the blank slate. Much of it is just common sense though IMO. This is more wishful thinking on people's part, I think.

I would like to know why Objectivism supposedly relies on the doctrine of the Blank Slate though. It doesn't seem like it should to me.

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

Look around you my friend, #1 is clearly false, but then Rand did not say that man was a "completely" rational animal. In this case the distinction is everything.

As for #2, what else would you recommend we derive our ethical systems from, something contradictory to our nature?

At best our nature can inform, I argue. Everything we do is a result of our nature anyway, directly or indirectly, regardless, so I can't help fall into a kind of trap here, but to say that should do x because we have evolved that way to me seems presumptuous and creates problems (it's like saying a rock should be hard and lumpy because that is the nature of a rock. That's it's unethical for the rock to be carved into anything else, which is absurd).

Humans are selfish by nature, no doubt (although we can be just as instinctually altruistic, there are two sides to this coin), and Ayn Rand says that we should have a selfish ethics because of that, but it doesn't take into account the possibility that selfishness might be a flaw in a modern era where it would have been beneficial in early Darwinian situations to survival, just like rape might have been (I say might, I don't really know) an effective strategy for spreading one's genes. Surely that doesn't mean we should vindicate rape, even if it's an undeniable if ugly part of our nature.

EDIT: As an aside I argue we should develop our ethics based on individual rights and non-coercion, and the prevention of human suffering (but not to the detriment of individual rights) since this is the most effective way to ensure a happy and peaceful society... in my view. Kind of truncated, I know. You can call it a libertarian method motivated by a utilitarian goal.

[Is-Ought Problem actually solved? Problem of Universals]

*** Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN *** 

It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

 

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

 

From The Virtue of Selfishness, copied from the Ayn Rand Lexicon website.

 

Now, I've never read David Hume, mind you (A Treatise of Human Nature is on my want-to-read list). I have read The Virtue of Selfishness for what little of Ayn Rand I have read, and while I like the way she thinks I'm unconvinced that this ethical system can be derived as an imperative from our nature.

 

Daniel Dennett is one of my favorite intellectuals, and he makes the point that science can help inform ethical decisions (like if it turns out an animal is intelligent or feels pain, we may be more considerate of it's well-being). But that's as far as I'm willing to go, the knowledge that I'm built a certain way shouldn't influence the conscious decision of how I want to live my life, short of setting physical limits. The fact that we can't have a moral system without being alive in the first place doesn't convince me that "survival" (in the broad developed sense Rand uses it) should be my highest standard of value.

 

I just find it very difficult to consider the notion that it is somehow unethical to do anything that would be detrimental to myself or counter intuitive to my nature. It can only be unethical to do such a thing to another person (and if someone depends on you then harming yourself could harm them) because now it's an issue of rights. You don't have the right to harm other people, but you certainly have a right to harm yourself if you feel like it, know one owns your life but you.

 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting her philosophy, but it seems like any assertion that you should live a certain way rather than laying out what you shouldn't do (whatever is outside your rights) along the way is not consistent with a philosophy of individualism, in that case it's a kind of secular social conservatism.

 

That aside, our nature is determined by evolution, which is blind and flawed for however brilliant it is. Evolution couldn't have foreseen the supernormal stimuli we overload ourselves with today (porn, candy, etc), and it's left us with imperfect abilities at reasoning, socializing, and even ethics and scientific pursuit, short of whatever was sufficient for our hunter gatherer days (my solution to all this is transhumanism, which is not the topic of the thread, but if anyone feels like making off-topic asides I would be curious as to what you guys think of that as well). So I really don't think putting a huge stock in our nature as a reference for how we should live is a good idea.

 

Just to give an example of what I mean about evolution leaving us imperfect, if you've heard of the Trolley Problem, you can understand how irrational and underdeveloped (but strongly convinced of) our intuitive sense of right and wrong can be, as Steven Pinker points out in The Stuff of Thought: http://books.google.com/books?id=jylSITT9Z...ontcover#PPA229 (start from the bottom of the page, sorry it won't let me copy and paste).

 

Something as trivial as a semantic distinction between causing and letting (resulting in the same effect otherwise) can influence the life and death decisions people make. Now I don't mean to let that be a misanthropic statement (however true) but it does make me dubious of two things: 1. That man is a (completely) rational animal, and that 2. we should derive our ethical systems from our nature.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized I'm making an argument here and I posted this in questions.

 

This probably belongs in ethics, rights?

[Tabula Rasa]

Yes, utterly.

I know this thread is two months old but I had to comment. If you base your entire philosophy on a scientific theory that has a weak foundation, then when that foundation crumbles the philosophy goes with it.

Tabula Rasa is a pretty outdated and unscientific concept, if you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate he does a pretty good job of dismantling the nominal subject, and goes on to explain why we don't need the blank slate to preserve our virtues anyway (indeed he demonstrates why it would be worse).

If Objectivism relies utterly on tabula rasa than all the worse for Objectivism.

[Is Sadomasochism Justifiable Under Objectivism?]

The same goes for SM. I know nothing about psychology, so the pseudo science in this this next part is probably a bad idea, but: Are you practicing SM to fulfill your natural sexual needs, does it make your sexlife more satisfying, without it messing with other aspects of your life, or is it an obsession that causes you to not have healthy sexual relationships, or makes you vulnerable to sexual predators, abusive boyfriend etc. If for instance someone was abused in their childhood, and is now looking to "fix" that experience in their minds, by being compelled to relive it(hoping for a better outcome), their moral course of action would be to seek treatment, not engage in SM.

P.S. I speculate a lot about human psychology in the last paragraph, hopefully somone with a little actual knowledge of the subject will correct me.

That makes good sense to me.

I don't have statistics for you (they don't exist) but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who engage in BDSM do it just for fun, it improves their sex life and they don't take it to extremes. There are a minority of couples who practice something called "power exchange" where it becomes a little more real (they sign contracts "exchanging" rights), and still there are some who really are abusive and/or seek to be genuinely abused.

There are some psychologists (particularly sex counselors part of the scene) that say reliving the moment can be a form of therapy, like this one:

When a person has a physical wound in their flesh, it is both pleasurable and painful for it to be touched. Scabs tend to itch and the desire is there for it to be scratched. The same goes with an emotional wound or hurt.

http://elisesutton.homestead.com/psychology.html

I don't know how much I agree with that, but it's a good point.

By the way, sadism and masochism are both classified as mental disorders in the DSM (there is some debate over the listing of sexual disorders), however so was homosexuality just 30 years ago...

[Is Sadomasochism Justifiable Under Objectivism?]

I might be imposing here but I just had to comment when I saw this topic.

I think a serious mistake is being made here by framing people who practice BDSM as being "mentally ill." Sure there are some really sick people out there, but for the most part people who enjoy that kind of play in the bedroom are normal in their everyday lives and are careful and sensible about what they do, in fact there is a saying that's used in the BDSM community that can sum it up: Safe, Sane and Consensual (or SSC). Look it up.

That's all I wanted to point out, it might still not be justifiable under Objectivist ethics but just know it's usually not as extreme as CSI drama might have you believe.

[What makes an Objectivist?]

For the record I was not trying to gauge whether or not a I should label myself an Objectivist, that's not my intention and I honestly don't see myself reconciling the disagreements I have with Rand's philosophy, as few as they are, any time soon. I was just curious, considering how those disagreements are few (but probably big), exactly what basic concepts one would have to accept to consider themselves an Objectivist, where there is no room for disagreement.

Just as someone wouldn't be considered a Christian if they didn't accept that Christ was the messiah, regardless of how much they practiced Christian tenets, I suspect there are a lot of people like me who like a large amount of what Ayn Rand said but aren't convinced by all her premises or how she went from step A to step B; Like I said, I still don't see how accepting that there is an objective reality inevitably leads, in a series of drawn conclusions, to accepting capitalism as the best economic system, even if I actually do accept both of those facts.

I think it's more accurate to say that I like Objectivism but I myself am not an Objectivist. When a discussion about Ayn Rand and her philosophy comes up I find myself defending her more often than not.

I'm not going to stop with just the The Virtue of Selfishness, several other books are on my reading list including: For the New Intellectual, Capitalism : The Unknown Ideal, I find her non-fiction easy to read. I started reading The Fountainhead but didn't finish it, so that's on my to-do-list, and of course I have my eyes on Atlas Shrugged even though I'm afraid to read it.

The main reason I'm interested in Ayn Rand is because, along with Milton Friedman and company, she's supposedly one of the major influences on the modern libertarian movement, whether she would have liked that fact or not. After reading The Virtue of Selfishness I can see why! (why she's an influence, not why she didn't like libertarians). In light of this I'm planning to return to Radicals for Capitalism, which I didn't finish reading either.

[What makes an Objectivist?]

So I finished reading The Virtue of Selfishness, specific criticisms aside I found myself agreeing with almost everything that was being said. This is the only book I have read by Ayn Rand thus far but this combined with interviews I have seen and other pieces I've read, it looks like my thoughts and world-view are very much in line with the philosophy she laid out.

I would be reluctant to call myself an Objectivist however, because besides the fact that I haven't properly explored the philosophy, from what I've been told it's a closed philosophical system, and probably most importantly where I would agree on multiple issues they might still be independent issues to me, my belief that reality is objective has nothing to do with my minarchism, whereas an Objectivist somehow draws one from the other, and if I really think about it if I met Ayn Rand in person I'm sure she would regard me as an altruist.

I'm not looking to "join the club" so to speak, but I'm honestly curious as to what principles or ideas someone has to accept in order to legitimately call themselves an Objectivist.

Thank you.

[Honest Analysis with Questions]

That is correct. I think Ayn Rand said it was one of the toughest philosophies to adopt because it is so integrated. Everything is related to everything else very tightly, and on first principles.

Like a bowl of soup rather than a salad I can pick apart?

It's certainly unique, unlike anything I've seen.

As per evil. The term is ethical in nature, and ethics involves both actions that affect oneself alone as well as others. i.e. What is the right thing to do? wether or not it affects someone else. In fact the most fundamental virtues are defined relative to oneself first, and others as secondary. Take honesty as an example. In Objectivist terms it is not faking reality in any way. Before you lie to other people, you lie to yourself, and in fact, that first lie to yourself is the one that makes all other lies possible. So honesty is first to yourself.

That was deep, I certainly believe it. Lying to yourself makes it easier to do the same to other people.

I only say self-destructive actions aren't immoral because they are contained, and that morality is integrated with the issue of choice.

hmmm. yeah. From an Objectivist point of view, right understanding comes from the presence of reason (as opposed to the absence of something) integrated into all aspects of ones life. From living life according to rational principles.

I see.

What if I said that we are all capable or reason and rationality, but that it was just clouded by other things such as ignorance and extremism? Someone once said all humans are born enlightened, the rest of the bad stuff comes later to envelope it. I wouldn't think right understanding comes from the presence of reason, so much as right understanding, reason, wisdom, etc, are what's left after the mist is cleared.

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits -- passing defilements -- come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds. Don't go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun.

Partially correct. Any act of self-sacrifice is anti-life, and anything anti-life is immoral, and therefore evil. In the case of drugs, you are sacrificing the real for the unreal. You are sacrificing a clear mind for a clouded mind that warps your otherwise accurate perceptions of reality, and it's capability to comprehend those perceptions...they are by definition anti-reality, and therefore immoral.

Suicide, however, as the single most self-sacrificial (therefore immoral) thing anyone can do, CAN be justified given the context. If committing suicide will spare you the pain of being tortured to death, or if it can save the life of someone whom you love (and couldn't bare to live without), then suicide in that context could be justified, but it requires a context, and is almost always immoral.

I think we can both agree that such self destructive acts are not enlightened. The difference is I don't think someone who wants to commit suicide or take drugs is an evil or immoral person, I think such a person is suffering and needs help.

My understanding of what is more or immoral is mostly rooted in what affects people besides yourself. There is a difference between killing yourself in private or killing yourself and everyone else in a suicide bombing.

Of course, you can argue that your friends and family are affected by self-destructive acts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. So are you claiming that evil doesn't exist?

Trying to avoid semantics here... I'm saying that evil as we all know it is essentially illusion, "evil" is born out of ignorance and distracting emotions, while good is the nature of right understanding. This is just my view though, it all depends on what your definition of evil is.

[Honest Analysis with Questions]

Greetings Melchior, this is Pvynex. You'll find that if you want a debate, there's a "Criticism of Objectivism" subforum in the Miscellaneous subforum of this board. I will warn you though, they're a lot better at it than I am (Much more practice).

If this is the same Melchior as the one from that other forum, then I'm the one who made him aware of the egoistic principles of Objectivism during a couple of debates on that forum. The debate stopped when he said that he found the moral goodness of altruism to be "Self-evident". How does one challenge that?

I'm glad he came here. I'd suggest to you, Melchior, that you find out about Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology before trying to challenge Objectivist ethics. Ethics are, after all, based in those subjects, and without them ethics has no meaning. If you have a disagreement with Objectivist ethics, the disagreement is probably rooted in metaphysics or epistemology.

Hey! Small world... er, Internet.

Yes, this is the same Melchior. The description of myself in the first post was probably a dead giveaway though.

Don't starting thinking I'm a convert, but my curiosity has been peaked by you and others like you in libertarian/political circles.

I'll take you up on your suggestion... later.

[Honest Analysis with Questions]

But if you are the pot then wouldn't that also imply that all the good thoughts are inside along with all the dirt? I don't know if you can so easily seperate the good and bad things. Furthermore, I don't think you can learn anything at all, or improve yourself just by removing all the bad things from your life. Happiness and self-esteem are only achieved as a result of something positive that is present (in your actions, for example), not by the absence of a negative.

If you think about it, doesn't happiness feel lighter than sorrow? Perhaps a better analogy is that when the pot is empty of dirt (suffering), it is full of air (joy).

There are different kinds of happiness, and you can be happy by achieving something... you can also become proud and full of yourself from achieving something, and suffer after losing that thing you achieved, many factors are involved.

True, pure wisdom and bliss is found in being observant, moderate and unattached, from the Buddhist point of view. But of course there are Buddhists who might debate with me on this, or offer a better answer, it's a philosophy that demands being put to the test, but that's just one reason for why I like it so much.

So you would vote for someone just because you thought they had a chance of winning? That's not right. You should vote for the candidate you feel best represents your beliefs...that's the true meaning of democracy, is it not? If everyone voted Republican because they thought the Republican candidate would win, then of course that person would win. Only by taking a stand yourself can you make a difference...and that difference won't happen immediately, but with time there is a definite chance. But if you vote only for the people who you think will win, nothing will ever change.

Very cool, thank you Mimpy.

[Honest Analysis with Questions]

It seems like you guys are expecting more from the Libertarian Party than they need to provide. Libertarianism is political/legal and nothing more, in order to be complete one must take it for what it is and adopt other philosophies to cover everything else.

If the LP did what you wanted them to do we would be a much, much smaller movement.

Even then, Libertarians go above and beyond the call of duty to emphasize the ethical importance of non-violence, the efficiency of the free market, and the power of civil disobedience.

It's unfortunate, I like the LP and they let people fill in the blanks for themselves (they have no obligation to), you can back up their goals with your values, but because you guys want them to do it and condemn them until they do we lose some major potential support from Ayn Rand followers. The only realistic obstacle is their chances of winning, but how are you supposed to get votes if no one votes for you?

Because society is only a number of individuals. "Society," as such, does not exist. There is no entity "society," it is only a word used to refer to more than one individual.

There is no such entity as "society as a whole," and if there was, why should its interests matter to us? Society is merely a collection of individuals. That which is inimical to the survival of individuals is evil, period.

I see. For the record, I agree that a society or a community is an abstract concept, and the interest of the community does not come before the rights of the individual.

But from my understanding in order for something to be evil it has to affect more than just the person committing the act. It's a given that setting off a bomb in the middle of a city is evil, or lying to the population is evil, but it seems from the Objectivist's (uppercase right?) point of view, even taking drugs or committing suicide is evil. I did not expect a philosophy built on individualism to have such a point of view, so I assumed you thought it was society that had to pay the price... I guess not.

Still, I do not even believe in the concept of evil, because as I said in order for something to be evil it must acted out of negative intentions and cause suffering to more than just yourself, but negative emotions such as anger, hatred, or any that cause suffering is are an illusion of the ego-self.

The system of morals behind Objectivism are more clear now, it really is an all-encompassing philosophy, including personal practice. This is not something one can easily adopt in an official manner.

I don't know as much about Buddhism as I do about Western religions. Could you explain what is meant by "emptiness" here? Intuitively, it would seem to be the opposite of "awareness."

I know, it sounds weird. Think of yourself as a pot... full of dirt. The dirt represents all the distractions and negativity you harbor, all the anger, suffering and sadness, the clinging and ignorance. Once the pot is empty, all that's left is happiness and clarity. You can say from the Buddhist point of view right understanding and right thought come from the emptiness or absence of these negative things.

- - - - - -

Enough about that though... I don't really have any more questions about Objectivism, anything more would only be debate, and I can see this place discourages opposing arguments from non-Objectivists, so I'll lay low now out of respect.

That was a lot of responses, sorry for not touching on them. I appreciate the input and the links, which I'll read on my own time. I will also be sure to seek out and indulge in Rand's works in the future.