Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tonix777

Regulars
  • Posts

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tonix777

  1. I for one would like to know the origins or rationale for this statement.

    (Was it AR herself, or Dr Peikoff, who mentioned "swallowing Objectivism in one gulp"- or something?)

    Still, I have serious doubts about this method.. I was no 'empty vessel' when I discovered Objectivism - much had to unlearned, first. Every conscious step from there was by choice, and by testing against reality.

    Each should validate Objectivism for themselves.

    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

  2. "Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly." (The Virtue of Selfishness)

    "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." ("Philosophy: Who Needs It")

    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

  3. The point of contention here is what Ayn Rand was referring to when she used the term 'tabula rasa.' Thus, it doesn't help at all to show how other people use the term. Rand made her claim concerning tabula rasa very clear: people are not born with any conceptual knowledge. To saddle her with some other claim just because other people use the same term to refer to different things is equivocation.

    Good point, agreed that no conceptual knowledge comes inside before birth

    The point here is that if we have been successful in identifying true moral principles, then they apply whenever their context obtains. They are absolute within that context, like scientific principles. If you find yourself defying one, you know that you're harming your own life in the long run. 'Adapting yourself to Objectivism' in this case means taking those moral principles seriously and attempting to use them to better your own life, rather than pretending they aren't true when you don't feel like following them. Of course, applying these principles to concretes often involves a lot of individual context, so it is also true that concrete applications of principles are highly individualized.

    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

    I disagree. Biological altruism, to the extent it is true, is a fact about human nature. It cannot be wished away by any philosophy, including Objectivism, and no philosophy should seek to. It must be taken as given when constructing a moral system. Philosophical altruism, on the other hand, is a man-made position on the fundamental nature of morality, one that should be rejected in the strongest terms. Objectivism is a fact-based philosophy, and biological altruism is a fact. There is no conflict there. Philosophical altruism, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with Objectivist moral philosophy. Any 'reinforcement' that occurs between different usages of the term altruism is only due to confusion about the issues and unclear thinking.

    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

  4. Yes to both questions.

    I can also grow my own food, chop my own wood, build a shelter if necessary, hunt and fish.

    I believe it is in one's rational self interest to enjoy the ease and protections of modern civilization while always being prepared for those niceties to be stripped away.

    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"

  5. What Brian said. You completely misunderstand Rand's conception of tabula rasa as well as her view of the scope of our control over our emotions. In addition, you also completely misunderstand the content of 'altruism' that Rand opposed. Altruism in the biological literature refers to a sense of empathy or concern for the well-being of others of our species. This is a completely different usage of the word than philosophical altruism, which originated with Comte and consists of self-denial of values. It is this second sense of altruism that was virulently opposed by Rand. And as for conclusion C, if you have grave concerns about society collapsing, just build an underground bunker somewhere out in the woods like everyone else who worries about that.

    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

  6. I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. What you mean by retaining primitivism in case society collapses.

    Are you conflating a healthy body and basic self preservation skills with primitivism?

    If so I would argue that this is incorrect.

    It is not primitivism to keep a healthy body and have basic survival skills.

    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...

  7. 1. "Tabula rasa" refers to the knowledge/value content of the brain, not to one's genetic tendencies, so you are misusing the term.

    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

    It is not Objectivist philosophy that must be adapted to each individual - it is each individual who must adapt to Objectivist philosophy.

    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

  8. Brain2.jpg

    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?

  9. Why so reluctant to read the Peikoff book?

    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

  10. But don't you want to know WHY you like it? Aren't you worried that there is no reason to like it? The unexamined life, after all...

    -- Mindy

    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) :)

  11. You seem to ignore the fact that to give any credit to any idea, beyond what reason and evidence warrant, is to be irrational. You don't want to play around with irrationality because reason is a discipline. Do something right part of the time and wrong part of the time and you won't be very good at doing it. Eat a little food and a little poison, and you'll get pretty sick. Personally, I think any interest in transcendental powers, knowledge, etc. is a symptom of a serious problem.

    -- Mindy

    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

  12. OPAR is the best overall review of the philosophy and it validates it in explicit terms and discussion regarding both abstracts (especially) and concretes. I believe that this would be more beneficial to you regarding your confusion with the areas of faith/belief/god/actions inquired here and everything else that has transpired in this thread over the other options you listed. It also would likely be beneficial to you in general having read that book. So my advice is to simply purchase OPAR (it isn't expensive and it is well worth the content). It will be much clearer to you what errors you are making. I do not agree with Peikoff on everything when it comes to the world of issues, there have been times I have disagreed with conclusions in his podcasts for instance. However when it comes to the philosophy in general and its delivery he has done an exceptional and 100% accurate (any debate about this is thrown out by the fact Ayn Rand approved of it as a placeholder if she did not write on herself, which she didn't) and it is the best source for this information all in one place, regardless of your overall personal opinion of Peikoff this work is without contest, at least at this time, in its goal.

    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

  13. Don't read Emerson, instead read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Read it cover to cover, realize the grave errors you are making if you really take pride in this philosophy and its benefits for you personally in your own life, and then come back. You are more than welcome here as long as you leave these silly claims of compatibility outside.

    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

  14. My point in posting the review comments is because there is a specific attribute among the ones I posted. They question both the logic and the scientific validity of the conclusions, even with a specific example or two from within the book. I was hoping, since you have read the book and I have not, to explain these discrepancies. You have not done so. You expect to receive a good response when you ignore a point of the conversation that is essential to it?

    Further, you are right, we cannot tell you if you are an Objectivist or not, but the deceased creator of it can and she was very explicit about what Objectivism is and who can claim to be an Objectivist. She was extremely explicit about it because she did not want events like this one that is being displayed in this thread to happen, where people that are going against the most fundamental elements of the philosophy are claiming to be members of it.

    You do not meet the criteria when it comes down to your ideas and your justifications for them. You need to explain why these actions are better than not having them, which you have thus far failed to do. That is the reason you are facing a harsh reception. The people on here are reasonable and polite, but they have heard enough silly half-baked arguments to have little tolerance for them anymore. You are more than welcome to try again if you sit down and try and justify this properly. If you cannot do that then yes you are probably wasting your time and your earlier choice to retire your comments might be the appropriate decision.

    Don't read Emerson, instead read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Read it cover to cover, realize the grave errors you are making if you really take pride in this philosophy and its benefits for you personally in your own life, and then come back. You are more than welcome here as long as you leave these silly claims of compatibility outside.

    Ok

  15. You're not an Objectivist. It is a closed system which contains atheism and non-religion. Rationalize your religion however you want to comfort yourself but you don't fool others. Even if there is a portion of the brain disposed towards religion that doesn't make it appropriate as a means of survival for man. Schizophrenics have a schizophrenic portion of their brain but it doesn't make it a good way to live. Also Alper's statistical studies don't prove anything; It has to be sensible and appropriate for individual lives. Majorities have done all kinds of stupid things through history; religion is just one of the most recurring ones. Additionally I do not see how this benefits your life in any way. As I see it, it is a waste of time and like all deism is just an added pointless construct between your beliefs and knowledge and yourself.

    And also do you really worship gods from Elder Scrolls? I mean I thought Christianity was crazy but resorting to a pantheon of gods like you live in ancient Greece or Rome and basing them on video game elements? When I finally began to move to atheism I realized there was little point believing in hypothetical characters I am certain to be false when I could believe in myself and my abilities to do good without trying to please a God.

    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?

  16. There you go again, calling this "research" when it actually boils down to the assertion that anything that the vast majority does is good.

    If you have not read Ralph Waldo Emerson, I suggest you do.

    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

  17. I just don't understand how any of this is necessary if you are an Objectivist. No praying should be necessary or even viewed as sensible, whether you realize it is fake or not. No "code" should need to be integrated, one only needs the conclusions brought forth via the Objectivist heierarchal system and its fundamental normative ethics (rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride).

    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)

    I have to agree that based on discussion so far I don't think you understand Objectivism properly as another poster suggested. You need to explain your reasonings better than just "I like it" and you need to provide evidence as to why you think Alper's theory can be attributed to instinctual in regards to the realm of human behavior.

    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

    The reason I would like further explanation from you is because there are quite a few reviews like of this nature regarding this Alper's book on Amazon:

    [several bad reviews of the book]

    Bad reviews are a good guide but to form a final opinion you should read the book with an open mind

    There are 5 main theories by scientists regarding God & the brain:

    1. God as an artifact of the brain (propagated by Stewart Guthrie, an anthropologist at Fordham University in New York City)

    2. Similar religious experiences as attributable to commonalities in episodes stemmed from the same neural processes (Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist at Univ of Pennsylvania)

    3. God as a Cerebral Mistake (Persinger, neuroscientist)

    4. The God Gene (Dean Hamer, head of gene structure and regulation at National Cancer Institute)

    5. God as a "holy hallucinogen" proposed by Rick Strassman (associate professor of pschiatry at Univ. of New Mexico school of medicine)

    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

  18. Hey tonix for fun could you please define what you mean by "transcendental"??

    "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 :)

  19. And yet you seem unsatisfied to simply leave it at that. Instead, you rationalize what you like by the use of pseudo science. if you simply said "I like it" you might be ignored, but less so when you claim the mantle of science. Then, when challenged on the unscientific nature of your argument, you fall back to "I like it", and to childish insults.Why bother with the whole argument thing. Simply say: "I like to imagine there is a God even if there's no reason to think there's one" and leave it like that.

    Someone might say: "I like to imagine that my grand-dad is still alive and always following me around, and that he has my back if things go bad, like he used to do when I was little". That's something that another person can at least grasp, even if they find it odd. However, if you start trying to prove that it is natural for human beings to think gramps is alive and literally protecting them, you're going to run into arguments from reasonable people who might otherwise simply ignore your idiosyncrasy. If you then have to resort to insult and fall back on "I like to think this", it merely demonstrates how empty your argument was in the first place.

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

  20. As has been pointed out Alper has made a mistake. It is your job now to admit that he has made that mistake. I have read smaller articles not by Alpers regarding what you are speaking of. It is not instinctual and thats an improper use of the term. Also there is no reason to believe those statistics are in line with his theories, there are many reasons people believe in god including temporal lobe epilepsy among other things.

    "And one way to do it is by example praying before every time I practice martial arts in my backyard to some Pantheon of Gods I found in the virtual World of Tamriel inside a know video-games series. Silly? I don't know, probably, but it works for me and connects me to some transcendental dimension of my consciousness which otherwise would be lost."

    This is a compartmentalized evasion of reality and can bring nothing beneficial to you. You are praying for no good reason and you know that and wish to propagate such actions, fabricating the idea that it is beneficial. It is silly as you already half way admitted and if it it "works for you" you need to explain in what way. It does not connect you to some transcendental dimension of your consciousness that would otherwise be lost, I have read about this thing you speak of by other writers and you seem to be inferring many things that are not included in the theory, at least by people other than Alpers. You have lost nothing, it doesn't exist and you cannot connect to it. Its your brain fooling itself, this is from older functions of our brain that were there for survival purposes etc. that we no longer have use for, and you are allowing that this to happen with your Elder Scrolls pantheon even though you know better.

    "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

  21. So you plan to gain knowledge about the structures and functions before you know what knowledge is and how to gain it[epistemology/philosophy]?

    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

  22. I see no reason why this method of evading the reality of death has to be anything instinctual, it could just as well be a voluntary evasion of reality.

    I also feel the need to throw in that I never in my life felt any overwhelming involuntary desire to perform any sort of worship rituals, or believe in any gods.

    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 :)

  23. What's this tendency? I remember thinking God was a weird idea when I was around 12, and deciding it was a bunch of crap in the next few years. I have never detected a tendency toward any type of religion in myself. Is there a three-sentence way to explain this tendency of which you speak?

    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."

×
×
  • Create New...