algieM

The use of the word "chosing" seems to imply conscious decision. But many of our choices are not blatantly conscious. For example, do I get to my morning job on time, or do I call the vendor whose product another customer is waiting for? Do I sit there (after having "chosen to think") and weigh all the rational possibilities? No. I don't have time, and if I was to go delving into all the possible logical ramifications of this decision, I'd never get to my job OR make the phone call! No, I think, "Damn it, I'd better just be late and call and get it over with." That's one of the amazing things about the human mind - that we can make decisions - and important and useful decisions, without having to consciously weigh each and every minute detail. I still don't get this "choosing to think," or this volitional/non-volitional business. Very, very little of what we do is done after we consciously think, "I'm going to do this." Richard Feinman didn't "choose" to be interested in science or to be naturally talented as a mathematician and scientist. My son didn't "choose" to like ketchup. My (now dead) dog Jack didn't "choose" to like catching frisbees or ignoring me when he was the field behind the neighbors house and knew I couldn't see him. Conversely, Feinman couldn't have "willed" himself to be interested in car racing, my son couldn't "choose" to dislike ketchup, and my dog couldn't have "volitioned" himself to hate frisbees. You want something on a more concrete level? What about "choosing" whether to shoplift something or not. The type of personality that is likely to shoplife is not one that goes around philosophizing over the ethics of crime - and they don't choose to be that type of personality. That is not a decision that is made on a logical level at all. Is the person "not thinking"? You're damn right they're thinking!!! They're thinking, "I better be careful. Can anyone see me?" In fact, they're not even thinking that on a conscious level - they are doing what we do more than think, acting automatically - automatically being careful, automatically looking to see if anyone is watching. "Bad" decisions are not from a lack of thought, but rather the result of thoughts (if they're the result of intentional, deliberate thoughts at all) that are (like the vast, vast majority of thoughts we have) not as "rational" as the idealized objectivist would like to believe they are. As for the "Who wants to be a millionaire" idea, I'll give you an example from my own family that flies in the face of people "chosing" to be millionaires, or having "sparks" that come along and motivate them. I have a brother who, from the time he was a little kid and really couldn't even conceive of a million dollars, much less that he would get that way by saving and investing his money, saved and invested his money! He also washed his hands a lot, and didn't get that way by "choosing to think" about hand-washing. I, on the other hand, really never cared too much about money one way or another. We're different people by our very constitution and innate personality. He didn't "chose" to be a saver and to be interested in money and actively enjoy manipulating stocks, and I didn't "choose" not to be a millionaire, any more than he "chose" to be interested in old movies and I "chose" to be interested in the guitar. If someone, by dint of their innate personality, is interested and enjoys things that will lead him not to succeed, or even to ruin, that's not his fault any more than it's to Einstein's credit that he was good at and enjoyed math. We are who we are, and we go from there. Something I see over and over again in many of these posts is the need, or desire, for the posters to be able to portray success in life as the result of "choices," "chosing to think," or "volition," and the lack of success as being the lack of "choosing," not "chosing to think," or the lack of "volition." My point, which I think I've made from the beginning, is not that choice has NOTHING to do with it, but rather that it is only one of many aspects of conscious and unconscious experience that contribute to where we find ourselves in life; that choices are not made in a psychological and contextual vacume, but rather are part of an ongoing dynamic that we call life. We, not to mention the world we live in, are far, far too complex to be put into the simplistic box that objectivists would like to put us into. I think what's really going on here is that some people (objectivists), for whatever psychological reasons, need, or at least are content to look at people and place blame or credit squarely on their shoulders. On the other hand are people like me who, for whatever psychological reasons, need, or at least are content to look at those same people and say, and without being any less rational, the world is not that simple. We're talking about different worldviews, and we will never convince each other to change those views. But we can have fun and exercise our minds by doing what we're doing here - not because writing in forums makes sense (from a rational point of view there isn't much of a bigger waste of time than carrying on un-win-able arguments with invisible strangers - which is proof to me that you hard-core objectivists are not as rational as you would like to think), but because WE ENJOY IT! Isn't irrationality great.

I think post #21 put the whole thing better than I could. I don't get this "chosing to think" business. I honestly don't remember the last time I "chose" to think. We think all the time (not "constantly," but often). It's not like we either think or don't think. Neither do we have two distinct kinds of thinking - rational and irrational. It's this black-and-white line-drawing that is so unrealistic. Here's a historical example of how this Objectivist "you get what you deserve because you're not as rational as I am" business doesn't make sense. Before the Great Depression it was the general attitude in America that you got what you deserved. If you were poor, it was the result of some deficiency on your part. (If you were born into a coal mining family it was your own fault you were ignorant, undernourished, and likely to get shot if you tried to oppose the mining company. If you would just get your act together and be more rational you wouldn't be in such bad straights. Where as if you were the son of a bootlegger who married the New York Mayor's daughter so he could do it with implunity and so have money to propel your son the presidency (Kennedy) of the United States it was because you were "rational" that you succeeded.) If you were rich, it was because you "did the right things." Imagine, now, an honest, hardworking carpenter in 1929. He earns his money honestly doing good work. Now, what does he do with his money? One rational plan would be to put the money in the bank so that it earns interest and does not get stolen. Another rational plan, if he was aware of the banking situation, would be to put his money in a box under the bed, where it won't acrue interest and might get stolen. We can see that neither is the "right" answer. Are we to believe that everyone who lost money in the depression was a chronic "irrational thinker"? Our circumstances in life are not simply the result of our being "rational" or "irrational." Life is not that simple. The reality is that we have so many things coming at us that we can't possibly consider all of it. Much of what we do we do on a simple basis of past experience. Other things might be based on specialized knowledge. Then, like it or not, there are the powerful emotional influences on both our ability to think and on what we will focus our thinking. I think the gray area created by the combination of the above influences is very, very gray. I honestly don't know how we would even begin to try and quantify how much of our thinking is based on genetics, how much on past experience, how much on our present emotionals and situation, and how much can be chalked up to "free will." It isn't cut and dry - it isn't simplistic - and that's my whole point. The "purposes" concept is simplistic as well. Humanity has been struggling with the "purposes" of life as far back as we can track. The problem with some Objectivists is that since they are commited to Objectivism they have to apply it to every aspect of their lives - once again, like many Christians apply Christianity. In order to do that they have to simplify everything - from thinking to purposes in life. A given person has many, and often conflicting purposes. One purpose might be his own gratification, and another might be the well-being of his family, and yet another related to his philosophy, religion, and yet another related to his job. Even if we think of purposes in the narrow sense (as, for example, what will I spend this $100 on?), we have do decide which purposes are more important than others,and all of the conflicts in the paragraph above apply here as well. Once again - life isn't that simple.

Years ago I used to "believe" in Rynd style objectivism, but left it behind just as I left Christianity behind before I "got Objectivism." What I've learned through the years is that, to a great extent, people don't "choose" their beliefs. It's not like one day someone gets out of bed and thinks out of the clear blue sky, "Golly, I think I'll be irrational and be a Christian." The mistake "believers" of all stripes make is that they don't realize that we don't have nearly as much control over how we think about the world as they would like to think. We don't choose our culture, the language we will think in (and hence the concepts that are expressable in that language), the family we are born into and the influences it imposes on us long before we are able to understand . . . and the list goes on and on and on . . not least of all the incredible flow of chance events that exposes us to myriads of ideas and experiences we don't choose to be exposed to. We only have control within the range that is left to us after all of these formative and controlling influences have done their work. Here's an analogy. Put someone in a room. Choose the design of the room, the furnishings and objects in the room, the lighting in the room, what other people in the room will do, etc. To what extent can they claim control over their activities in the room when you have determined the very possibilities. Life and genetics does the same thing to us. Just as the person in the room only has choice within the context of the room, so we only have control or choice within the context of our genetic predisposition and the backgrounds of our lives. Consider Objectivism. Objectivists pride themselves in being logical, just as Lutheran's pride themselves on being moral, and artists pride themselves on being creative. But it is a fact of life that we are born with genetic predispositions. Some people are good at math, by their very genetic constitution. Others will never, ever be good at math, no matter how hard they try. Some are naturally good at art. Not only are there genetic predispositions regarding what we are naturally good at, but the same goes for what we enjoy. Some people (like people who frequent internet forums) enjoy intellectual sparring, other's not - and these are not things we have a lot of control over. I couldn't choose to be interested in knitting or accounting theory if I wanted! Being logical, or rational if you like, is similar. There is no doubt a great deal of genetic predisposition involved. I often see in posts in these forums, expressed implicitly or explicitly, that people choose to be irrational. There is little, if any room given for people to simply be who they are genetically, and that, to a great extent, we are the result of our backgrounds. Again, I'm not saying we have no control, or that we're totally determined by genetics or background, but rather that we are not nearly as free to choose our interests, predispositions, beliefs, etc. as some would like to believe. My questions - Do you believe we freely "choose" to be rational/irrational (obviously it's a matter of degree), or are some of us, at least to some extent, naturally predisposed to having an interest and ability in being rational, as some are naturally interested and predisposed to being good at math, art, or social ability? If your answer is "No, we don't freely choose to be rational," how can we blame irrational people for being irrational? (Notice that I'm not saying that we should like that irrational people are irrational, that we shouldn't do anything to try and help them be more rational, or to prevent irrational people from screwing things up. It's a question about the nature of human personality.)