Tonix777
-
Posts
142 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tonix777
-
-
In my case religiosity and Gods have been a very interesting topic during all my life
I was born in an agnostic/atheist family and I have been agnostic/atheist most of my 46 years of existence
Some years ago though I read Matthew Alper's book "The God part of the Brain" which main premise is HERE
Matthew Alper proposes a theory that I find absolutely compatible with Objectivism since it doesn't say that God exists, bur explain instead why this issue is so important for mankind: There is something genetically "hard-wired" inside our brains to have some religious behavior, tendency, instinct
My interest in Man's religiosity drove me to write some (polemic) topics in this forum like:
Seven Deadly Sins against Reason
The problem with this guy called Jesus of Nazareth
And in the end I have to admit that I am some sort of Deist in a very particular way that I follow to explain:
I know that surely there is no one "out there", nothing supernatural, but I also recognize inside me the tendency Matthew Alper talks about, so I find healthy to exercise it in some way compatible with the rest of my values and rational mind-structure. 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
Akatosh, dragon god of time, creator of the Universe and soul of the World
Arkay, god of the cycle of birth and death
Dibella, goddess of beauty and arts
Julianos, god of wisdom and science
Kynareth, goddess of the air and the ghosts
Mara, mother goddess of love
Stendarr, god of mercy
Talos, the man-god, the Emperor, the warrior
Zenithar, god of work and commerce
Thank you all for being here in this wonderful World,
in this wonderful time...
-
It appears to demonstrate, that lacking a developed method for validating knowledge with a consistant application of that method, volitional conceptual beings can draw erroneous conclusions.
That the errors drawn have similarities (religious overtones) to one another demonstrate that given the same set of data (facts/existence) how many different conclusions can be drawn from it? Primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness.
was 'you draw'
I don't think this is a typical case of "Primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness" since here the object of study is indeed our own consciousness and eventually its relationship with our brain, so it is epistemologically licit in this case to assume man CAN gain valuable objective knowledge of reality by looking inward (being our consciousness part of "reality")
-
You are consulting the special sciences for an answer to a philosophical question.
I don't agree at all
A is A and our "spiritual" functioning, our mind, depends 100% on our body and specially our brain
Unless you believe in a soul independent of the brain you have to admit that you need to study the hardware in order to better understand the software
Personally I am not mystic about our soul, I am absolutely mechanist: Our soul runs in our brain as any computer's software runs in a CPU
No brain, no mind, no soul
So the question about the existence or not of "instinctual drives" in Man as species is 100% mechanic and concerning to the structure and functioning of our brain or our whole nervous system in any case
Philosophy comes later
-
It is not just a matter of "managing" them. It is our minds that identify them. And "them" are not "instinctual drives" but conditions required for survival and actions required to meet those requirements. Capacities and requirements are not instinctual drives. An animal's consciousness automatically controls his actions to the requirements of its survival. Man has no such automatic controls, no instinctual drives.
To "manage" something you first need to identify it of course. The very action of managing something implies at least:
a- You know WHAT you are managing
b-You know HOW to manage it
Your position is somewhat in line with Rand's when she says in Playboy interview "Physically, sex is merely a capacity", I don't agree with her in this point neither with you
Sex is definitely more that a capacity as almost everyone can testify, there is a strong urge there without which our species wouldn't had survived
A mere "capacity" which means a neutral potential wouldn't had guaranteed the survival of our species thru millions of years of evolution and in so hard and different circumstances
However as also everyone can testify we don't know what to do with or how to control this urge or "instinctual drive" unless we use our mind, here I agree with you abut "no automatic controls"
In more complex behaviors like bury our dead beloved ones, caring for our offspring, etc. the relationship cause-effect is not so easy to demonstrate.
In the case of religious behavior Matthew Alper theory says that the fact that every culture or tribe no matter how isolated had it in every age of our evolution as species in every corner of the planet demonstrates that there is some kind of "instinctual drive" inside of Man as species that impulses this religious behavior, despite the fact that some or many individuals consciously choose to be atheists (As a priest can consciously choose to not exercise sex)
In the same line of reasoning I say that probably there is also some "instinctual drive" in Man that impulses us to live in groups and some tendency to collectivism and altruism, despite the fact that some of us are individualists and selfish in the Objectivist sense of these words.
Alper's method of reasoning is characteristic of all scientists that believe in evolution and natural-selection and the underlying idea is that any trait in any species is there for some reason that contribute or at least contributed to the survival of the species in some way
-
Of course I understand Rand's position, but I also understand she was at war against the mystics of any kind so she couldn't take any prisoners...
I will do some more serious research and come back with this topic when and if it worth
I did more research about this topic and the result lead to a somewhat blind alley because the definition and scope of the concept "instincts" varies according to scholars and history
In modern science though several related concepts refers to similar but not necessarily identical human traits:
Instincts
Biological predispositions
Innate behavior
Human motivational forces
Instinctual drives
On the other hand different researchers have different opinions and when asked: Do humans have instincts?
They answer by example:
"We sure do. Our basic survival depends on them. Although greatly subdued through modern means, "grocery stores, etc." we have a killer instinct. Ever notice someone getting upset because they are hungry? Eons ago, this would be the body telling the mind to go out and get something for dinner. You would have to hunt, or pull something from the ground "vegetation" to satisfy those cravings. Now one only has to reach for the fridge. And, of course, the other survival instinct, only second to hunger, is sex. Survival of the species would be impossible without it"
"Short of the "suckling" response, humans have NO instincts. We have reflexes which are not instincts or the resullts of instincts. A reflex never makes it pas the spinal colum. It is a part of the autonomous nervous system which cannot be overriden."
"According to what scientists currently say, humans have no instincts. Much of what people have already listed, sucking, choking, finger grabing are obvious reflexes. I have to agree with what the last poster wrote. However I do believe in the mothering instinct. It is far from unheard of in the animal kingdom that a mother will kill or abandon her babies. This is not always due to defect of the young, I supose some females (human and otherwise) just don't have that instinct."
"It is very surprising to read above answer that human beings do not have instincts.There are few important human instincts ,which are not learning by any means. Laughing, crying,sweet eating,sex desire ,meternity instincts etc are natural as duck baby starts swiming at the time of birth.These instincts are not learned behaviour.there is no relation between envirnment and instincts."
"Sex is not a learned response. How did the first humans mate without the general knowledge of others? Because it's an instinct. It is a PROVEN fact that if you put a newborn baby into water, the baby will try to keep itself above water. It's the child's INSTINCT to try to swim with no prior knowledge before hand. As for the whole "read a book" thing above.. It's your instinct to get food when your hungry. Today, our knowledge generally overrides our instincts because we have it so easy. If you put a person that lives in California in Alaska, they have no prior knowledge of Alaska. The only thing they have to survive on is instinct. They find food because they are hungry. INSTINCT. They try to find shelter because their body can't handle the cold. INSTINCT. There is no argument for the "Humans have no instinct" side of the issue. We obviously have it. We're also an animal species."
Wikipedia stresses that this subject is "is still hotly debated" among scholars
"Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: sleeping, altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated". Some experiments in human and primate societies have also come to the conclusion that a sense of fairness could be considered instinctual, with humans and apes willing to harm their own interests in protesting unfair treatment of self or others.[2][3]
Many scientists consider that it is instinctual in children to put everything in their mouths, because this is how they tell their immune system about the environment and the surroundings, what the immune system should adapt to.[4]
Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This definitory argument is present in many introductory sociology and biology textbooks,[5] but is still hotly debated."
Other references are also unclear or in disagreement between each other:
"...However, if you remove the egg halfway through her trip back to the nest, she will continue back to the nest with her bill on the ground, "rolling" the now-absent egg.
The question is, then, are there fixed action patterns in humans? Surprisingly, scientists do not agree on this answer. It's hard to visualize any human behavior that is that stereotyped, that automatic, that is definately inheritied, not learned. Some have argued that behaviors such as caring for babies or the incest taboo are fixed action patterns, but this is debatable."
"This is a good debate.
Not really because to debate that we are born with instincts is ridiculous.
EMOTIONS BTW are taught, they are conditioned because they are how you respond to certain things, you are taught how to respond to things.
While some instincts you have are taught, you actually do have physical & biological instincts just like any other mammal or animal that critical to survival, procreation and so on ... only difference is that we are supposed to be in control of ours as the "superior beings".
Bowzer, on Aug 3 2004, 06:21 AM, said: Man has no instincts--not even so much as a relic of one.
"This is untrue. We are equipt with mental behaviour which is not learned and exists within us. Everything from the ability to recognise facial expressions and read body language, to jumping at the sound of a gun; from vomiting to breast-feeding, is instinctive. We aren't taught to do it.
And I suppose you think having an erection is an act of volition...? "
The voices of the orthodox Objectivism are clear but they are philosophers and probably not final authorities on biology or neuroscience
They are in my opinion speaking about a broader/higher level of man's consciousness and its relationship with reality. In this context they are absolutely right: Man's consciousness can never be replaced by any innate behavior in acquiring/generating knowledge about reality
Leonard Peikoff _OPAR_ pp. 193-4 said:
"The lower conscious species may be said to survive by "instinct," if the term means an unchosen and unerring form of action (unerring within the limits of its range). Sensations and percepts are unchosen and unerring. An instinct, however—whether of self-preservation or anything else—is precisely what a conceptual being does not have. Man cannot function or survive by the guidance of mere sensations or percepts. A conceptual being cannot initiate action unless he knows the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot pursue a goal unless he identifies what his goal is and how to achieve it."
Galt's speech:
"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an 'instinct'. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold, Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history..."
AR Playboy interview:
PLAYBOY: "You attack the idea that sex is "impervious to reason." But isn't sex a nonrational biological instinct?"
RAND: "No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts. Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life."
PLAYBOY: "Isn't the individual equipped with powerful, nonrational biological drives?"
RAND: "He is not. A man is equipped with a certain kind of physical mechanism and certain needs, but without any knowledge of how to fulfill them. For instance, man needs food. He experiences hunger. But, unless he learns first to identify this hunger, then to know that he needs food and how to obtain it, he will starve. The need, the hunger, will not tell him how to satisfy it. Man is born with certain physical and psychological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do."
My final conclusions are as follows
1-The word "Instincts" became an anti-concept as time had gone by as brilliantly stated by stephen_speicher in our own Forum
2-In any case we should distinguish between Instincts and Reflexes being instincts possible to be "intercepted" by our volitional consciousness because they reside in the brain, while reflexes are generated directly in the spine and can't be volitionally managed. None of them gives to Man any innate knowledge about reality, only about himself
3-To avoid confusions I would better use the more scientific term Instinctual drives to define strong impulses we humans have like physical sexual attraction, hunger, violent anger, caring for our children, etc.
These instinctual drives would include some degree of religious and collectivist-altruist innate tendency in most of us according to Matthew Alper and me
4-The HUGE difference between lower animals and us is that have our conscious volition to decide what to do with these "Instinctual drives". We can manage them while other animals can't, it is our free will
5-Besides all scholar sources that can be disputed or not in legitimacy, seriousness, etc. I have always been a very self-centered person and I can also recognize inside me these impulses or "Instinctual drives" even since my early childhood and in matters where I hadn't learned yet anything from my environment-family-society, or even more clear: sometimes my "Instinctual drives" (some of them absolutely shameful) were at odds with the alleged teachings of the society
-
Of course I understand Rand's position, but I also understand she was at war against the mystics of any kind so she couldn't take any prisoners...
I will do some more serious research and come back with this topic when and if it worth
-
Use an authoritative dictionary, not a web page. I would use either the Oxford English Dictionary or else Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. From the former, excluding obsolete usages
Innate impulse; natural or spontaneous tendency or inclination. Formerly applicable to the natural tendencies of inanimate things.An innate propensity in organized beings (esp. in the lower animals), varying with the species, and manifesting itself in acts which appear to be rational, but are performed without conscious design or intentional adaptation of means to ends. Also, the faculty supposed to be involved in this operation (formerly often regarded as a kind of intuitive knowledge).Any faculty acting like animal instinct; intuition; unconscious dexterity or skill.Observe that innateness / inheritance is an essential part of the concept. If you want examples of what Rand said about "instinct", you can look online in the Ayn Rand lexicon.
OK you got me on this one, I will do some more research and reformulate
I still believe that I have a valid idea, I just have to fine tune concepts and definitions
Thanks for your contribution
-
I have a copy of the dictionary right here, and it doesn't say that. So your problem is that you need to check the dictionary, before you make claims about man having instincts.
This is the dictionary I used and it seems a good definition for me since it is in line with my previous concept of what "instinct" means
What is your concept or what says your dictionary?
It would be interesting if you mean something very different with the same word
English is not my native language but I thought I knew it enough...
-
I knew this topic would be polemical...
The word "Instinct" (much less the word "tendency") doesn't mean compulsion or obligation
According to the dictionary:
Instinct:
- A powerful motivation or impulse.
- An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
- An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
Can anyone cite any Ran's paragraph where she actually says "Man has no instincts"?
Because if she did she was wrong, I have read almost all of her books and I don't recall something like this...
We DO have instincts.
Our marvelous consciousness is mounted on an "animal chassis"
Man species still belong for now to the animal genre and we still share a lot of characteristics with them, which makes sometimes our conscious/moral decisions even more commendable because we make these decisions sometimes against our own instincts: The presence of these instincts doesn't invalidate our free will
But on the other hand our instincts, coming from this "animal chassis" were the insurance policy for the species to survive in remote ages when our consciousness was not as evolved as now, specially considering our wonderful-modern-western mind, and in my opinion they are still the failsafe for our survival in case of a major planetary-scale disaster...
I usually make the following analogy with computers:
Our body is our hardware, our instincts are our firmware and our mind is our software
The most important part of theses three is of course is the software, it is the magnificent result of millions of years of evolution but some of you are forgetting that it still needs the necessary hardware and firmware to run on
A is A, we are animals with consciousness, the stage of being pure consciousness is SciFi for now
-
Plasmatic, Vik, Grames
Matthew Alper doesn't mention any "innate knowledge", instincts and hard-wired tendencies are not knowledge
Sex is another good example: It is a strong instinct that exists in everyone, whether you choose to accept it or not and no matter what is your conscious decision about how to manage it
-
Religion is most likely a primitive form of philosophy. John Ridpath states in his ARI available lecture:
Religion: A set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.
Then he boiled his research down discover the history of religion looking through the following four questions:
1. What is it?
2. Where did it come from?
3. How do I know it?
4. What should I do?
Collectivism, far from being 'hard-wired' into the brain, is little more than the sacrifice of the individual to the group, with those who show the greatest degree of indiviuality being the most likely candidated for the next sacrifice.
Tonix777 - a better grasp and comprehension of what Objectivism is might provide you with a better foundation from which to suggest parallels from other endevours that might be benificial. For instance, the work done by Martin Cowen III in founding the Fellowship of Reason, is in interesting mix of what religion has to offer blended with the principles of reason.
I have a full grasp of what Objectivism says don't worry, I am just trying to look somewhat beyond...
And Matthew Alper tries to address your point # 2: Where did it come from?
I will try to read Martin Cowen's work though, thanks for the recommendation, I always like to learn new things
-
Sometimes it seems to me that Ayn Rand created a wonderful philosophy or at least its foundations but she only had time in the span of her life to leave us the basic, powerful concepts defined in broad strokes. Most Objectivists on the other hand would respond "it is all what we need"
But it is beginning to be not enough for me lately, specially because there are at least two conflictive fields where I think further analysis is needed:
1-Religion
2-Colectivism
Rand's position about these two ideas is clear-cut: Absolute rejection
Which is good and somehow needed given the human history during the last several millennia, but I would like here to go further and ask why these two phenomena has been a constant in human history during these last several millennia?
Isn't this a good question to ask?
If objective-scientific method indicates that every effect has a cause, what is the cause of these two constant phenomena along the ages?
Specifically about religion I have started already several (some of them polemical) topics in this prestigious Forum like:
Seven Deadly Sins against Reason
The problem with this guy called Jesus of Nazareth
About religion I mostly subscribe to Matthew Alper's theory exposed in his book "The God part of the Brain" which main premise is HERE
Theory that I find absolutely compatible with Objectivism since it doesn't say that God exists, bur explain instead why this issue is so important for mankind: There is something genetically "hard-wired" inside our brains to have some religious behavior, tendency, instinct...
Following a similar reasoning process with Collectivism there has to be something about it "hard-wired" into our brains and for some important reason concerning our survival as individuals and species
Besides different approaches in singular cultures/countries the old conflict between the collective and the individual existed in every society in every geographic location and every era of humanity
So here it goes my hypothesis:
As brilliantly stated by Ayn Rand herself the two main functions of our brain are perceive differentiated entities and integrate them into concepts (1) so I propose that our brain do something similar with ourselves as living entities (2)
1-We differentiate ourselves from other entities of our own kind: other men.
Since we can't perceive ourselves as separate independent entities (which we physically are) unless we compare our existence against the existence of others as a collective = those which are not me. The very existence of individuality presupposes a collectiveness to differentiate from as light need darkness to exist.
I would at this point complete Aristotle's assessment "A is A" as follows: A is A only if there is at least B to differentiate from. (If all the infinite Universe is only A, then A ceases to exist as entity)
2-We then integrate ourselves into the collective be it family, clan, group, tribe, society, country, or the whole mankind from which we learn a very important part of what we are since we are kids and through the whole process of growing up. This collective gives us very valuable assets like protection, help to get food and shelter, education, culture, etc. to name just a few, so it is not a surprise that most people values it so highly: our very survival as individuals, or at least the individuals we currently are (the only ones we know) depends on our relationship with the collective
Finally the very existence of the collective, depending our genetically "hard-wired" tendency to live together, certainly allowed our survival as species thru the ages of our biological evolution
This hypothesis explains the origin/cause of the recurrent psychological and social deformation of individual's dilution in collectivistic societies along the whole history of mankind and whose extremes are recently represented by Communism, Nazism and Fascism. These and other societies took and still take advantage of this natural tendency to belong to a collective that is genetically "hard-wired" in our brains thru millennia after millennia of natural selection
(1) " ...Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible..." Ayn Rand - For the New Intellectual
(2) (For a more extensive analysis please refer to Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology")
-
Ragnar69 & QuoVadis:
I mostly agree with you about issues in modern translations of ancient texts, but if we focus more on the commandments as a concept in general, I don't share that "...these two commandments read in this way are actually quite moral by Objectivist standards"
The very nature of a "commandment" is against Objectivist standards from my point of view since a commandment is something you are supposed to follow more or less blindly AKA without conscious judgment.
Religious commandments were written in a time when people didn't think very much by themselves and needed precise orders about how to live...
Oh wait I suddenly realized that I am speaking about present time!!
-
The ideas that the majority have are not important to your personal pursuit of the truth, but they are important in communicating your ideas to others. If the vast majority of society understands the definition of a word to be different than the manner in which you use it, that is important to know.
Even more: I live in the US and the Government take part of my income to pay for other people's alleged right to food, shelter, healthcare, etc. and if I refuse to pay I go to jail. So I better know
I personally think that men-created reality (society's rules, laws, legal rights, obligations, etc.) is as important as natural reality, A is A and one have to learn to deal with both
-
RayNewman123, AllMenAreIslands, DavidOdden
I think we need to clarify some definitions first:
The word "Rights" has two different meanings as noun:
1-That which is morally correct, just or honorable
2-A moral o legal entitlement to have or obtain something
Objectivism goes more for the definition #1 as it "ought to be" and based in a particular approach about what is "morally correct"
On the other hand the other 95% of the World goes more for the definition #2 where rights are whatever government/society happen to say. These are the rights and specially obligations that are imposed over us by law = at a point of a gun, in any specific society if we want to live in that society
It is clear also that there are negative rights = real rights, that are these rights we have for others NOT-TO-DO some things against our life, liberty and property (property being the right to own the product of our own mind and effort). These are the ancient rights that most men since immemorial times had to defend using physical force when and if necessary, and are now protected by law in modern western societies
The false modern rights or positive rights are these based in the alleged obligation of society (other men) to provide me goods and services like home, food, healthcare, etc.
-
Most theories of "natural rights" have been fatally flawed. In fact, I've never seen a correct account. I don't know if Rand is considered a natural rights theorist or not.
I don't believe Rand ever spoke about "natural" rights. Her ethics is about "man's" rights, starting from individual rights and going to political rights.
Previous link from A is A is absolutely useful in understanding Rand's position
On the other hand the very concept of "natural right" is a contradiction in itself, since rights are not natural, they are created by men to live in society.
Rand's enlightening ideas start founding these political rights is the basic individual needs/rights of man to survival qua man, the needs/rights that everyone should defend even using force if necessary in order to live properly
Problem with Rollins essay is the lack of precise definitions, I am planning a more detailed critique of it soon, paragraph by paragraph in order to evidence its flaws
-
This is a classic example of the false dichotomy between the intrinsic and the subjective. Either a right is a thing intrinsic in reality, wholly independent of human consciousness, or it is a subjective and arbitrary construct of the human mind. What's missing here is any concept of the objective -- of facts as identified by consciousness.
The principle of individual rights is an identification, in conceptual form, of certain facts in human nature and their implications for human survival in the presence of other men. Those facts and their implications exist whether we identify them or not, but the principle is not simply the facts. It is our grasp of the facts. Rights aren't intrinsic because we have to identify the facts on which the principle is based; they aren't subjective because we have to identify the facts on which the principle is based.
Well... I think that difference is not necessarily dichotomy. And a construct of the human mind is not necessarily arbitrary, it can be an objective and intelligent product of the reason correctly identifying the facts of reality as in the case of Rand's concept of human rights to life liberty and property
For anyone interested in the text of "The Myth of Natural Rights" by L.A. Rollins I just found a blog HERE that apparently has the basic text. Interesting to read specially because Rollins tries (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to refute Rand in this topic
-
I accidentally stumbled across this review of "The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays" by L.A. Rollins and I almost threw up (lately it happens to me that I feel physically bad when I read something so ugly...) But in the end I had to admit something from a philosophical point of view: There are no "natural" rights simply because a right is "a moral o legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way" according to the dictionary.
And if the same dictionary defines natural as "existing in or caused by nature, not made or caused by humankind" then very concept of "rights" belongs to the province of ethics in the country of rationality: Human concepts: constructs of the human mind
Which is astonishing is how people like Rollings dismiss human constructs as irrelevant and Rand's concept of "right to life" as childish. My chain of reasoning here would be: I am alive and my first moral right MUST be taking the proper actions to continue living wether other isolated individuals or the society at large recognize or not this inalienable right...
Anyone have read this book to know the review of an Objectivist about it?
-
I went to see this movie just because I'm kinda fan of Ridley Scott and I liked Russell Crowe in other epic movies like Gladiator
Once seated in the theater realizing that Cate Blanchett and Max von Sydow were also part of the cast was my first pleasure, second pleasure was finding that it wasn't the "socialist" movie I was expecting thanks to my sort of "Objectivist prejudice" --> Thanks Ridley
It is a solid movie about the greatness of a "simple man" with intelligence, integrity, bravery and some luck. It seems Scott did a good research about the real origins of the legend and the way people lived in these times
I was very glad to recover this character from my childhood, my father use to talk a lot about the adventures of Robin Hood and there was an old book in the family's library with that cheap illustration in the cover... (nostalgic)
I loved the legend when I was a kid and I practice archery now probably in part due to these old stories of my infancy
-
I'm also in a relationship with a non-Objectivist.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1279...ectivists_.aspx
This article might be of some help to you. The success rate of marriage between Objectivists and non-objectivists, it does not answer.
Interesting article, thanks!
May I ask if you are doing well with your non-Objectivist partner?
Is a man or a woman?
I ask this because in my experience men are different from women either Objectivists or not.
I suppose Objectivist women are more rational than non-Objectivist ones, but statistically I think women as a general rule tend to be less rational than men, specially concerning their romantic relationships. With all the obvious exceptions starting with Ms Rand...
-
Anyone married with a non-Objectivist?
What is the known experience and/or statistics about success/failure ratio?
In my personal case I became Objectivist AFTER marrying my wife and having a beautiful and smart son (2) that is the sun of my life
But lately when time comes to make important decisions for the family (or even daily coexistence) agreement it is very hard, I basically manage the situation based on conflict theory since there is no possible total agreement based on objective facts because in general my wife don't really recognize objectivity as a virtue
Temporary pacts also don't last because of her lack of solid rational values so basically the situation of conflict is more or less permanent with cycles up and down (perhaps this is the very nature of life?) and my only hope is to maintain the level of the conflict below some comfort-threshold as much time as possible
Possibly in some years when our son is more grown up I am considering definitive separation as the only solution...
Anyone knows some long lasting marriage between an Objectivist and a non-Objectivist?
Advice? Any useful book to read?
-
Of the Objectivists I know who follow the paleo diet, I have met none who made the decision to eat this way unconsciously. Other than those Objectivists, I know of none who vocally advocate eating organic foods or grass fed beef or raw milk.
I also don't know any Objectivists who agree with the Environmentalist movement or any of its subsets. So if your post is not directed at Paleo Objectivists, I do not know of any Objectivists to whom it could be directed to. Perhaps you could give an example of persons or stances you've seen previously which led you to believe there are Objectivists being unwittingly influenced by the Environmentalist movement.
As a side topic: I was reading some basic concepts about the paleo diet in Dr Ben Balzer’s Paleolithic Diet Weblog and it sounds very interesting and well backed by research and objective facts...
Can I ask you how long have you been practicing this diet and what is your personal experience? Did you note any changes in your health, physical abilities, behavior, moods, etc?
Thanks!
-
Of the Objectivists I know who follow the paleo diet, I have met none who made the decision to eat this way unconsciously. Other than those Objectivists, I know of none who vocally advocate eating organic foods or grass fed beef or raw milk.
I also don't know any Objectivists who agree with the Environmentalist movement or any of its subsets. So if your post is not directed at Paleo Objectivists, I do not know of any Objectivists to whom it could be directed to. Perhaps you could give an example of persons or stances you've seen previously which led you to believe there are Objectivists being unwittingly influenced by the Environmentalist movement.
Interesting...
I don't know very much about the paleo diet, but my post is certainly not directed to Objectivists only, on the other hand I probably assumed wrongly that most people participating in this forum are at least close to Objectivism
-
The Paleo Diet movement in Objectivism is wholly separate from the Environmentalist movement. In fact, most of the people in this thread who say they prefer raw milk enjoy eating the flesh of furry creatures for health and pleasure. As one of these supposedly "Environmentalist" Objectivists, I can tell you that I hold no such principle as: "Natural = good, artificial = bad." I follow science. I have read a great deal of well founded research on why the current pasteurization processes (which use chemicals, not heat radiation like Louis Pasteur) make milk less nutritious and sponsor allergies to casein and lactose. As far as organic vegetables free of pesticides, I don't eat them. I haven't seen any convincing evidence against "non-organic" fruits and vegetables. But my judgement of whether or not to eat them is not a philosophic one, it is unrelated to the principles of human progress and technology.
In fact I believe if I understand your point correctly, Tonix, you are attempting to make a scientific issue into a philosophical one, for the purposes of condemning those who don't eat the same foods as you.
Let's go into the facts here:
Fact: Pasteurized and ultra pasteurized milk creates milk allergies. Unpasteurized milk is antibiotic and healthy.
Fact: Food grains contain poisonous antinutrients which block the absorption of minerals and clog the function of the body's organs.
Fact: Grains and sugars can cause many of the modern diseases which plague our life expectancy, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and some mental disorders.
Sources: here, here, here, and here.
Scientifically backed, and thus by nature not an issue of philosophical principle. I do not recycle, I do not cry for polar bears, I support drilling for oil, and for the advancement of human progress into new technologies at whatever speed we can. I will, however, eat what I think is healthiest for me, be it something humans have eaten since we evolved from apes, or something invented recently by the power of modern men's minds.
You have a strong position based on your own research and I respect that, but you probably would agree with me in than you belong to a small minority of conscious people that do some research before forming an opinion
Deism might be perfectly compatible with objectivism
in Religion
Posted
Researching a little bit more I am probably something in the frontier between Deism, Pantheism and Atheism with a touch of Agnosticism
A related and interesting YouTube video about Alber Einsten's postion about God and religion is HERE
Enjoy!
PS: Please note the nasty reactions of the Establishments of different religions when someone important to public opinion like AE puts in danger their power...