Tonix777

Agree with whYNOT, Objectivism is the best philosophical foundation to build the structure of our mind, but there is in the World much more to know and to learn beside Objectivism. It is up to each one of us to select the mix of knowledge we integrate into our mental structure as long as we do it in a non-contradictory way. Objectivism is a wonderful tool to manage fundamentals and hierarchy in that structure

Agree with Tensorman, AR didn't know so well the biology of the brain the emotions and the subconscious, understandable because being a writer and philosopher she wasn't neither a psychologist nor a biologist. Plus she grew up in a time when the knowledge about the physiology of our brain was far less than current. I don't think anyway that this invalidates any part of her philosophy and it is our "duty" to continue knowing deeper about this matter On the other hand "Emotions" is a broad term, some fast-non-exhaustive research in Wikipedia tells that there are few primary emotions and a bunch other more "evolved" complex emotions in our brain where instinctual/primary emotions come from the amygdala, while cognitive emotions come from the prefrontal cortex The six Primary Emotions according to Ekman are: Anger, Disgust, Fear, Happiness, Sadness, Surprise. Which "mix" like primary colors to form the whole colorful spectrum of our emotional system: Affection, Anger, Angst, Annoyance, Anxiety, Apathy, Awe, Contempt, Contentment, Curiosity, Boredom, Depression, Desire, Despair, Disappointment, Disgust, Ecstasy, Embarrassment, Envy, Euphoria, Fear, Frustration, Gratitude, Grief, Guilt, Happiness, Hatred, Hope, Horror, Hostility, Hysteria, Indifference, Interest, Jealousy, Joy, Loathing, Loneliness, Love, Lust, Misery, Panic, Pity, Pride, Rage, Regret, Remorse, Sadness, Satisfaction, Shame, Shock, Shyness, Sorrow, Suffering, Surprise, Wonder, Worry. All emotions either primary, secondary, etc. can also blend with each other in different degrees or strengths giving infinite possibilities Plus there are apparently even "meta-emotions" which are emotions about emotions... In this complex scenario I think AR is correct about complex emotions which are highly a product of our conscious values and philosophy

Good point, agreed that no conceptual knowledge comes inside before birth I also despise non-rigorous people without consistent moral and/or logical principles I give these issues upmost importance: I knew Objectivism late in my life, around my 40's in a foreign Country where nobody knows about it. It made me to review absolutely all my previous premises that I held during most of my adult lifespan, "restart" my brain, fight with all my relatives and friends and finally leave my Country with my wife and kids to come to live in NY, all thanks to Ayn Rand. So don't tell me I don't take this seriously In your case I can see you are young and smart so you are in a privileged position where it is easier to integrate Objectivism into your mind early in your life. You are lucky When I say "integrate" Objectivism into your own mental structure I mean without contradiction BUT you can't just forget overnight who you where for the past 40 years at risk of losing your very own identity. Convincing yourself that you wasted a big part of your only life could be very hurtful for your self-esteem specially if you don't believe in any afterlife, so I had to re-analyze all my past and sometimes almost "rewrite" some parts. I believe that you can even reserve a small room in an organized mental structure for non-essential-hard-to-eliminate contradictions (specially involving emotions) as long as you keep them at bay and know why they are there and where they come from Philosophical Altruism doesn't come from nowhere, why would anyone try to hurt himself? I believe it is an effect and the main primary cause is biological Altruism as an inherited human trait On a side note I always thought that Rand was a huge Altruist in the "biological" sense of the word because she chose to publicly share her wonderful insights helping millions of people around the World and for the years to come, while she could had easily kept them just for herself

Agreed and congratulations, I like to think the same way about myself but even when I am prepared and somewhat trained in 47 years I never had YET to hurt anyone in self defense besides a couple of street fights in my youth. Experience also tells me that "thinking" that you can is not the same as actually can, but the proper self-image is a good start anyway Returning to the topic I have the impression just by looking around that most people aren't as prepared as you are. I live in NY and it seems to me that majority of population here is quite "domesticated"

You are right about the difference between the two types of Altruism BUT I believe the philosophical Altruism grown thanks to the biological one The LA Times article I cited speaks about inherited traits used by religions as "building blocks" of their business, one of these traits is the biological Altruism which served as foundation for the religious Altruism which in turn gave birth to the philosophical one since Philosophy was more or less born from Religion. These three types of Altruism reinforce each other in a vicious circle in modern society

You are right I think I misused the term "primitivism" according to the Dictionary: "primitivism |ˈprimətivˌizəm| noun 1 a belief in the value of what is simple and unsophisticated, expressed as a philosophy of life or through art or literature. 2 unsophisticated behavior that is unaffected by objective reasoning." I was referring more to the idea I have that our sophisticated and pacific lifestyle makes us somewhat weak or should I better say "unprepared" for limit situations Have you by example ever had to defend yourself or your family from direct violence without intervention of the Police? In an extreme case would you be really able to kill someone in self-defense? I always remember the fall of the Roman Empire, the most sophisticated society of its age at hands of brute barbarians who probably only knew how to kill without piety...

Well... Before nothing I think this topic is very debatable so it should go in the Debate Section but I couldn't find a way to post there, it used to be more easy in the past... So it would be great if someone can move it there About "Tabula Rasa" it is not a concept so strictly defined as you think, as example see this brief article in Wikipedia Here the somewhat broader definition also mention "...aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence..." No doubt the brain doesn't carry at birth any "high level" information but it has been demonstrated by several experiments that we do carry inherited traits, some personality profile, etc. which strongly influence our life I disagree. As a philosophy Objectivism comes to life only inside each individual, so each one of us must integrate it into the structure of our own conscious "building" and not the other way around

More than 50 years after Atlas Shrugged and after much years of being Objectivist, I strongly believe that some update is necessary to Rand's original approach In fact more than an update is an extension consisting in applying Objectivism deeper to the Human Animal: Ourselves The Aristotelian "A is A" means also that WE are what we are, and in recent years after Rand's main body of work, several science disciplines has gone much further in the research about our very own nature as "biological machines". In an oversimplified analogy our body and specially our brain would be the "hardware", our mind the "software" and our emotional system standing between both, and functioning as some kind of "firmware" specially in our early years of life Rand focused her wonderful insights in our mind, the software, which is of course the proper terrain for philosophy but I think now that she overlooked the strong influence of our hardware in our behavior, moods, and choices, specially our Emotional System which is shaped by our "sense of life" = values in Randian terms but also by our biology and even the particular chemistry and hormone balance inside our brains What follow are some concepts for discussion, followed by some Conclusions at the end: 1- Modern Evolutionary Psychology and Neuroscience are progressing more and more in revealing how strong is the influence of DNA-inherited traits in our behavior and moral choices and preferences So Aristotle-Locke's concept of "Tabula Rasa" is valid to a certain (great) extend but not absolute since we have innate tendencies acquired thru darwinian evolution 2- The (also Aristotelian) "Eudaimonia" and thus our pursuit-of-happiness are very strongly influenced by our emotional system, in fact happiness itself is an emotionally based state of mind, complex, quite different for each individual, hard to define, but emotional in nature: We feel happy as opposite to we think we are happy 3- Altruism and Religiosity, two apparently DNA-inherited traits are central to the discourse of Objectivism vs traditional organization in Society Recent studies strongly suggest that these two tendencies found in all World's societies across all Ages, are "hardwired" in our brains and helped specie's survival As a sample of this line of though please read Matthew Alper's book "The God part of the Brain" or this article in LA Times: http://articles.lati...theism-20110718 4- Human Society's evolution leads also to "biological weakness"? Not to mention modern medicine hindering Natural Selection, Capitalism as the best-to-date political system is strongly linked to an evolved morality, and any regression in human history would likely diminish or eliminate Capitalism in modern Society with the subsequent possibility of returning to more savage relationships among men that in turn would also call for "less evolved" individuals in order to survive? 5- Beatles' classic "All you need is love" is an expression that probably would produce revulsion in Rand and most Objectivists BUT there is something extremely important inside the very concept of "Love" that is essential to our survival as individual and species: The DNA-inherited natural tendency of "attachment" in the Human Animal which is also emotionally driven. Attachment to our beloved ones, to our projects, to other people, even to objects or devices that become important for us, allowing to move towards needs generated by these feelings that not always have an easy or even logic explanation. 6- Ayn Rand stressed the essential importance of a John-Galt style of relationship with Nature, absolutely agreed BUT dominion of Nature is dominion of just one half of our environment, as social animals we usually live in groups so our "Reality" is compressed of Nature and People with the latter posing also multiple challenges coming from our relationship with others, personal interactions, rules and laws, rewards vs punishment, control vs freedom, etc. Conclusions: A- We are what we are, A is A and it is pointless to deny our very own nature consistent with our current degree of evolution as species. Thus integrating Objectivist Philosophy into our complex "interior" (including specially our Emotional System) is a challenge that everyone has to solve in his/her own way. But to me we need adequate managing not denial, of all these DNA-inherited traits and tendencies that are more strong in some individuals than others but always present in the end. B- Borrowing from conflict management strategies an interesting option I found is working "in the frontiers", meaning accepting that conflict is an essential part of existence and try to make our choices accordingly and as smart as possible. This is specially important in the relationship with all other people around us who usually are far more unpredictable and illogic than Nature that is much more benevolent in David Kelley's sense of the word C- It sounds politically incorrect but I also believe that we should contemplate the need to be less overcivilized in some cases, keeping deep inside ourselves some residual "primitivism" just in case modern Society collapses and relationships among men change in some future. This applies also to the sometimes overprotective environment and education we are giving to our children?

Could you please explain how to start a new topic with the new policy? Thanks

Well... I don't want to open than can of worms specially since I got beaten pretty hard already But I can tell you that I consider myself as a "frontier" person in general (I have my own somewhat complex theory for that) thus I am also a "frontier" Objectivist, meaning that I am more on the edge sometimes called Neo-Objectivism than in the center which I would call Orthodox-Objectivism currently directed by Peikoff By example I have read almost all AR but also Nathaniel Branden or David Kelley and I like most of their work, and I understand them both had been "expelled" from official Objectivism I also can understand why: Peikoff as official heir of AR has the duty of keep it pure, but I don't like duties, I like and preserve my own freedom of thought over anything else

I know "why" I like it, I know myself quite well (probable more than the average I would say). The point in this topic was that most other people didn't like my reasons for liking it or my proposed scientific explanations And by the way I don't share in this case your previous poison/food analogy: In a hierarchical mind-structure not everything has the same magnitude and some people are not capable to give things the correct scale of importance which is essential for the proper functioning of a logic mind Finally I would add that I don't share the quest for perfection showed by some Objectivists, it could be the reason for their defection long range... I try to be just excellent instead (and even that is hard to achieve sometimes)

I don't think simple "interest" would be a problem, no subject has a virus that you can catch if you study it. In any case problems could eventually begin with what you do with the results of your study... And if you read my posts I am not giving any credit to the supernatural, it was all about some possible "religious instinct" inside our own minds as species

Ok thanks for taking your time for this recommendation. I will probably buy it when I have a chance I have read a couple of Peikoff's essays and they are worth the money

I have read Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead Anthem For the New Intellectual (twice) The Virtue of Selfishnes Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Return of the Primitive Philosophy: Who Needs It And some books of Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley I am half thru now of Ayn Rand: The voice of reason and The Romantic Manifesto Perhaps instead of reading Peikoff's book you recommend I could re-read one or several of the books I already have? (Specially in order to amortize the investment I already made) Please advise

Ok

At this point I already realized that it was a mistake telling about my little personal joke/practice/ceremony about the Elder Scrolls Pantheon I officially regret/retire my comments

Oh well... I am sorry but you don't have the authority to say whether I am Objectivist or not About the Elder Scroll Pantheon I just like it, and since all Gods are invented then why one would be better than other?

Alper doesn't say that what "the vast majority does is good" in fact he is an atheist, his research or theory or whatever you want to call it is abut the following question: Why mankind invented Gods? I will try to read Emerson, thanks for the advice and please don't get mad, this discussion is not personal, it is about philosophy. In a previous post you spoke about "childish insults" and I didn't know what were you talking about, I am sorry if my non-orthodox ideas offended you

First than nothing please allow me to point out that "necessary" is an opinion not a fact. Necessary according to who or for whom? According to what standard? and besides this I don't do only "necessary" things in my life, I also do things that I just enjoy whether or not I have a full explicit explanation of why I enjoy them. Here I agree with AR when she said that over time your sense-of-life becomes the product of your conscious philosophy, so I usually trust my sense-of-life in most matters On the other hand Objectivism for me is not a full-time occupation, it gave me somewhat late in my life (my 40's) the best basic structure I found so far for my mind and where to re-build an important part of my soul, but I am much more than an Objectivist: I AM (Anthem) Again "properly" is an opinion not a fact. Properly according to who or for whom? According to what standard? But besides this I have discussed this subject in another topic before: Whether you should integrate yourself to Objectivism or Objectivism to yourself, I did and still do the last the best I can Bad reviews are a good guide but to form a final opinion you should read the book with an open mind Well 1, 4 and probably 3 seem to be somewhat in line with Alper's theory at least according to the tiltle? It seems to me that there is a misconception among some Objectivists referring science. Science is not infallible, it is just the best tool available to know reality and specially in this field of the humanities, anthropology, etc. there are a lot of different theories and arguments between scholars Finally I can see a some people at this forum writing logic fallacies just in order to justify their own points of view probably in an attempt to accommodate reality to their own previous opinions, like by example softwareNerd few posts above said "I'll bet less than 0.1% of humanity can program in C++. So, I propose a neo-Alper theory that humankind has evolved not to know C++, and that anyone who does is acting against his human nature." The fallacy here is that Alpers research is not based in the 5% of mankind that is atheist but in the 95% that is/was religious

"For fun"? Whose fun? Yours? OK there it goes "Transcendental" in this context is a special sensation/feeling/emotion/mental state that connects with Alper's "instinctual tendency" I spoke about before I you accept Alper's theory I guess this special sensation/feeling/emotion/mental state is probably generated in the "God part of the brain" If you don't accept Alper's theory then I will not try to explain it deeper in order not to increase your "fun" beyond the limits of decency

Ok let's cut it in "I like it" which is true

"pointed out" doesn't mean demonstrated as far as my concern And I "pray" to the Nine Divines for several good reasons indeed: 1-I like it 2-I like the Elder Scrolls games 3-It reminds me about important concepts in life represented by those virtual deities (could have been represented by other metaphors of course) and also helps me put in perspective the daily struggles of mundane life. 4-None of these concepts gets in contradiction with my Objectivist values. The key here is that I integrated this into my mind without incongruity as I did also by example with Bushido the ancient code of honor of the Samurai which I also like very much because of my Japanese martial arts practice 5-Probably this transcendental connection (to myself not with anything supernatural) can be and is achieved also by other means like reading a good book, traveling to a beautiful place, learning something new, etc. but I still like my little private ceremony. I only shared it here to demonstrate that Objectivists can also explore these frontiers without danger of being expelled from Galt's Paradise

Perhaps I misunderstood your first statement "You are consulting the special sciences for an answer to a philosophical question" My interpretation was that you propose to know the answer to the question "Do Man have instincts?" only using philosophy... The Metaphysics and Epistemology are of course Objectivist and using the Scientific Method of research. My point is that you can't find in philosophy answers to specific questions like "How the digestive system of a turtle functions?" You need special sciences for this. Philosophy only gives you the method of research and validate your answers

According to Wikipedia only 2.5% of humankind is atheist and 12.7% non-religious so these numbers seem to be in line with Alper's research... On the other hand I can guess 99% of Objectivists are atheists, so this Forum is probably not the best place to look for adherents to Alper's theory

About you in particular as individual, possibly you belong to the statistic group less affected by this "instinctual tendency" Alper's scientific research is polemical because it is based on statistical information. When you say that a group (in this case the whole mankind) has some statistical trait, you can always find inside this group individuals that have the trait enhanced, diminished or even annulated compared to group's average I read Alper's interesting book some years ago but I forgot the details so for a short explanation of this theory I will quote Alper himself: "...For every physical characteristic that is universal to a species, there must exist some gene or set of genes responsible for the emergence of that particular trait. For example, the fact that all cats possess whiskers means that somewhere within a cat's chromosomes there must exist "whisker" genes..." "...The same principle not only applies to universal physical traits, but to universal behaviors as well. Take, for instance, the fact that all honeybees construct their hives in the same hexagonal pattern. That all honeybee colonies, regardless of whether they've been exposed to any other, construct their hives in such an identical fashion means that they must be "hard-wired" to do so..." "...This would suggest that somewhere in the honeybees' brains there must exist a specific cluster of neurons that contain genetically inherited instructions which compel the bees to construct hexagonally shaped hives..." [Along the evoultion of the human animal] "...With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating awareness of death, it's possible our species might have soon become extinct. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness, while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities, of death..." "...Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death."